de Stricker

Information Management Close to Home: A crucial component in "instructions for relatives" documents

Following the recent tragic and untimely passing of a colleague, a friend of his reached out to me for suggestions as to "what to do with his manuscripts". Having corresponded with my colleague for some years about those manuscripts (some of which but not all were available in various online publishing portals), I encouraged that somehow, they be harvested from multiple locations and made available in one place for the general enjoyment of interested readers in future. In addition, I mentioned the disposition of profiles on social media sites.

The friend embarked upon a project turning out to be far more extensive and time consuming than we could have anticipated.

It's a painful topic, but the simple implications with respect to what we need to leave behind are worth pondering:

1: Anyone can download or recreate what is available on public websites. What about the trove of materials in computers, mobile devices, sticks, and free cloud storage locations? For example, could it be that a massive report, book, or other significant item was close to completion, needing only a bit of work on the part of someone familiar with the project for it to be sent on to the intended recipient or be published? Without access to file locations and passwords, executors may be unable to retrieve anything at all.

2: Anticipate the need to remove "ghost" websites and blogs. Of course, any paid accounts automatically close when the bills go unpaid at the end of the subscription period, so a deceased's website(s) and blog(s) will eventually disappear; but it may be advisable to actively remove, upon harvesting any wanted content, the presences owned by the deceased. Provide executors with detailed contact information for domain registrars and web hosts and sign an authorization form for use in conjunction with proof of death.

3: Anticipate the need to delete profiles from social media sites. Equip executors and power-of-attorney holders with the instruments required to prove they are indeed authorized to request the disposition of the profiles in question. Document the procedure required by each company (Host A requires B documentation and social media site C requires a copy of D form with a death certificate) to save the executors many hours of research. In addition, it is helpful for executors to have guidance with respect to any desires regarding a "memorial" virtual presence.

To the "special file folder in a desk drawer" containing insurance and banking information, we ought to add all the information our executors will need to deal appropriately with our electronic legacy when we're gone, along with explicit instructions for the treatment of content.

I'm indebted to my colleague Connie Crosby for her reference to the "Death and Digital Legacy" blog at www.deathanddigitallegacy.com where much more detail can be found.

Info Pros: Star Performers

In the spirit of the holiday season, I trust my readers will indulge me in some allegorical thinking about our profession:

Treated by dear and incredibly generous friends to a Canadian Tenors concert in Toronto (www.canadiantenors.com), I had the opportunity to watch at close range the intricate workings of the orchestra supporting those four magnificent singers: The musicians worked the piano, strings, and percussion - what an amazing array of drums, cymbals, hanging xylophones, rainstick type instruments, and other sound producing objects I don't know how to name! - with obvious engagement and enjoyment to organize and sequence thousands of individual notes into a harmonious, powerful, and sometimes surprising result. The light manager provided a splendid visual complement to the music, and the copious amounts of water vapor released into the concert hall lent a touch of magic. Each song performed reached back through decades or centuries to revered composers and was given life in the moment by the latest technology - in a manner uniquely suited to the occasion and the audience.

Giving thought to the vast planning and coordination required to produce an experience so clearly enjoyed by the sold-out house, it struck me: Isn't that what info pros do, too? Don't we, well, "orchestrate" myriad individual preparatory and immediate actions in order to "produce" the experience our audiences receive? Don't we collaborate within our organizations and across the profession to gain the skills to, well, "play those instruments with such perfect timing"? Don't we rely on the work done in decades and centuries before us and on the latest technology to meet our clients' unique needs? Don't we plan and organize so that the "star performers" - our users - get to deliver outstanding results?

As for the tenors - they, too, seemed like info pros to me - bringing to bear their education and talent on producing value. We're talking world class operatic stars … who related to the audience with humility, warm humor, and personable ease. In just that way I so often see information professionals being utterly modest and unassuming about their work, no matter how outstanding it is: Don't they deliver spectacular performances in the way they hit just the right notes when they do research or produce strategic plans (etc etc)?

Indeed we info pros do not perform in misty, colored lights on a background of exquisite music to deliver value to our clients. But in my humble opinion, we are pretty close.

Thank you for indulging me. Peace and Good Will on Earth this Solstice.

Influence ... Why Don't We Have More?

In late October 2011, I had the great honor - along with my colleague Connie Crosby - of being named Instructor of the Year at the iSchool Institute of the University of Toronto Faculty of Information (http://institute.ischool.utoronto.ca/). It has been my pleasure to teach in the program for years, and I look forward to doing so in the years to come. Nothing is as rewarding as seeing course participants realize how they can apply the course content to their own jobs; I teach each course in the hope of encouraging my professional peers to "go out there and make something happen". In other words, I like to think I make a difference.

Then, I came across a statement in an article by K. Matthew Dames in the November 2011 issue of Information Today (Intellectual Property - Libraries Encounter the Piracy Paradigm - www.infotoday.com/it/nov11/index.shtml). In it, he said "the library community … does not have the political influence to fundamentally change the conversation. The result is the nation's major political, economic, and legal stakeholders virtually ignore the library community."

Matthew Dames' article focused on copyright, but his direct statement about influence hit home. In a time when public libraries are shut down and corporations and government departments look to do without libraries, what influence do we librarians actually have?

In a recent item written for Information Today Europe - http://www.infotoday.eu/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=78092
- I commented on the 'new you' we all need to become. In my question "haven't we been polite about it long enough?" I was referring to the fact that we cannot afford to stay silent about the consequences of inadequate information behaviors. But Matthew Dames' comment shows my questions about information husbandry extend to society in general:

What influence do we have on public policy and funding for education, social and health services? Are the librarians - so very familiar with social and educational challenges - consulted when it comes to designing social programs? How can our knowledge be brought to bear on political will?

In the spirit of "isn't it time we moved from service to influence", I urge reflection … "how can I, as an information professional, make a positive difference in the legislation and practices of my society?".

New Normal Needs a New You: Internet Librarian International 2011

Once again I recently had the privilege of contributing to one of my favorite conferences: Internet Librarian International held in London in late October 2011. Within the conference theme of "The New Normal", my colleagues Michael Stephens and Joanna Ptolomey and I had the honor of concluding the activities through our final panel entitled "The New Normal Needs A New You". We each summarized key takeaways from the conference and were very pleased with the obvious engagement from the audience - check out the #ili2011 tweets!

As usual, the ILI conference drew attendees from all over the world and offered them up to the minute insights into best practices in a wide range of professional domains. In advance, I had been asked for a brief statement for Information Today Europe - see http://bit.ly/qQ4M1z. I was encouraged to see how the conference sessions and conversations bore out my thoughts - and even more encouraged to find how much it seems information professionals are preparing for new realities. Here are some views I had the opportunity to articulate at ILI2011:

►As a profession, we must expand the definition of what we do. I had the chance to advance this opinion as a panelist at the preconference SLA Europe reception: "We must adjust our
vocabulary to reflect to employers that we are superbly suited in many non-library roles - say, as policy analysts and marketing specialists - due to our skills in data, information, and knowledge management". The desire to work in traditional libraries is indeed a respectable goal; it's just that the number of traditional library jobs is dwindling fast . There will not be jobs in libraries for many graduates of information schools.

►We live in an attention economy and in a self service culture. Bombarded by inputs all day long, our potential clients may never discover the value of what we can offer them; and - worse - what they can't imagine, they can't ask for. There is a perfect match between "what they need" and "what we can do" - but the perceptual gap is huge.

►Hence our current challenge is to describe our services in ways our clients find meaningful. Our words must resonate with employers or members of a community ("what's in it for us?"). To that end, we must know everything we can about their needs and pain points - so that we can speak to them directly and with relevance, in language they understand. Some say it's a learning curve to drop the professional jargon - I say it's a matter of keeping our work particulars to ourselves. No one cares that we do content management - but our clients do care about the outcomes: "Save time by … Find job opportunities quickly by … Get homework help for your children by … [etc etc]".

►We must fundamentally examine our activities and let go of ones no longer serving the priority needs of our target audiences. It does not matter how expertly we do X … if X is not high on the list of our clients' needs!

The conference ended on a shared note that our highest goal is "knowing and reaching the customers on their terms". Nothing new here … it's just that it's a harder goal to reach nowadays when our voices are but a few among the thousands our clients hear every day in their electronic din.

My co-panelists and I would be most pleased to hear from our readers on the topic of "the new normal".

Giving "Conference" a New Meaning - Library 2.011

With founding sponsorship from the San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science, my esteemed colleagues Scott Brown and Kim Dority have spearheaded the world's first globally encompassing, entirely virtual, 48-hour FREE conference for information professionals - check out www.library20.com for all the details on the November 2-4 event. As of today, 160 sessions have been accepted - there's something for everyone!

I encourage my readers to browse the sessions and participate online … but there's more. The organizers are looking for our support; here are some ways you may offer it:

Volunteer to orchestrate one or more sessions:
http://www.library20.com/group/library2011conferencemoderatorvolunteers Why not take this opportunity to add a nugget to the resume that will prove your initiative and tech savvy (not to mention meeting colleagues all over the world)?

Bring your organization in as a partner: http://www.library20.com/page/conference-partners Show your support to the profession by having your library, school, association, or other entity be among the many partners already on board.

Spread the word: For their contribution to the library community, Scott and Kim deserve all the publicity they can possibly get for the conference. Make sure the people in your network know about this groundbreaking event - that's what our blogs and tweets are for. Here's a sample: "First ever global free online library conference Nov 2-4 at www.library20.com - be there!"

It was my honor to be invited to sit on international advisory board … join me in saluting Kim and Scott by helping them make Library 2.011 the fun, educational, relationship-building, and precedent-setting event it can be!

The Next 20 Feet of Your Life: Every Detail Counts!

The adage "don't know what you've got till it's gone" came home in spades in the aftermath of an ankle fracture sustained while traveling in Europe. It is amazing how much we never think about … until we must. The logistical minutiae of my return to Canada reflected in microcosm how much detail we tend to overlook in the activities and projects we undertake day to day - and reminded me of the need for specific information whenever we plan ahead, no matter what the scope of the tasks at hand. With many thanks to the airline staffers who pushed me (with crutches clutched in hand and bag perched on lap) through 4 airports, let me illustrate:

* What is the nature of the surfaces I'm going to be traversing (door thresholds, mats, rugs, marble, gravel, uneven sidewalks, curbs)? Is it even safe to use the crutches?

* How on earth do I get through that giant, and for an inexperienced crutch user dizzyingly fast, revolving door? Who knew there's a button at the side to slow down its speed, as a passerby showed me the second time around?

* When I do get inside the terminal, is there a place to sit while I plot my strategy for "activating" the wheelchair service I requested from the airline? The service commences at the checkin counter, not
before. If it weren't for my sister running to the counter on my behalf, I would have been reduced to flagging down any uniformed individual passing by my bench inside the terminal doors!

* How far is row 28 from the airplane entry door? It sounds as if it's way down, maybe I ought to ask again for a seat near the front ... oh no, wait, the particular plane model I'll be flying in has a second door at the back!

* Will the other passengers mind if I cling to their arm or back rests to get to and from my seat (safer than using crutches inside a plane)? Of course not, the white aircast is pretty obvious - but still.

* How far will the wheelchair service take me in the destination airport? All the way out to the taxi stand, thank goodness!

I have now received a striking illustration of the value of thorough advance information. Whenever we orient others, design websites, or otherwise carry out our professional functions, it helps to think it through: What else does my client need to be alerted to? What assumptions am I (possibly mistakenly) making about what he or she knows? What isn't likely to be familiar, given the differences, say, between practices in various countries? What little details could potentially cause difficulty if they are not made explicit?

Details, details. They matter.

"Beware Online Filter Bubbles" by Eli Pariser: Further to Expert Intermediation

Thanks to my colleague Linda Stacy, Senior Research Specialist & Training Manager at a consulting firm in Boston, for drawing attention to a thought provoking TED talk by Eli Pariser on "Filter Bubbles" (May 2, 2011 - http://bit.ly/kLYcuD).  In it, he outlines the risks resulting from news sources and search engines manipulating what we see based on past search and click behaviors among other factors: What links or whose input we click on now - for whatever reason or purpose - will shape what will be served up to us in future. 

The risk inherent in "filter bubbles" reinforces the angle in my last post on intermediated or curated content:  Is a trusted expert doing the sifting and selecting for information consumers … or are they on the other end of an admittedly sophisticated machine process of previous behavior analysis to determine what appears on their screens?

Eli Pariser points out how democracy is built on an informed citizenry relying on journalistic ethics to have information impartially presented; and he describes the effect of preference-based algorithms as being akin to living on a diet of information dessert, missing out on the information vegetables. The latter image is humorous, but the risk of never seeing fresh (or as he says, uncomfortable because unfamiliar) content is not trivial. Not knowing what items were quietly filtered out from the potential universe, we are deprived of the opportunity to judge for ourselves what information is relevant for a given situation. 

Well worth a couple of viewings, the concise (9 minutes) and beautifully articulated talk offers  specific value to information professionals in providing points to discuss when explaining why their intermediation/curation services are worthwhile.

Could Intermediation Become Respectable Again?

In collegial discussions about trends having affected our careers, one phenomenon tends to rise to the top:  Disintermediation.  The doing away with the research intermediary transformed our profession irrevocably and entirely altered the way in which we serve, and communicate about our services to, our clients.  It took some time, but in the end we collectively decided "the intermediation train had left the station" and got on with myriad ways of assisting our clients in doing their own research.

To no one's surprise, the "everyone for himself" research model generated a lot of dissatisfaction, in turn feeding a busy industry of public search providers and vendors of enterprise search solutions.  Users looking for information have a lot of options but often express dismay at the bewildering variety of those options and the impossibility of determining which ones are preferable.

Now, a different term offers the intriguing possibility of the train returning:  Curation.  Typically associated with archives or museums, the term refers to the act of collecting and arranging for others' viewing a number of objects - a wiki manager curates the content in it or a content manager is the curator of intranet information.  If the curator in question happens to be an expert whose judgment can be trusted in terms of what information to collect and arrange - and in some cases with respect to any commentary provided - those making use of the curated collection have a high level of confidence they are spared all the useless clutter and are offered "just the good stuff".  When I hear "the best place to get X type information is Y source, right?" I know the inquirer is looking for such confidence.

In a twist on traditional indexing and abstracting services whose goal was and is comprehensive coverage of a defined body of scientific or professional or news sources, some bloggers and organizations focusing on a particular subject matter have established themselves over time as authoritative sources of guidance.  In effect, they become "first port of call" because they consistently provide good quality results for users.  As one example, a recent Beyond Search blog post describing a targeted new blog entitled Backnotch (http://backnotch.com/) states "online has moved from vertical search to vertical 'finding' services" (see http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/2011/04/27/vertical-blog-a-new-spin-in-online/).  Aha, is intermediation back?

In the past, we held the intermediary role when our clients came to us, described the research need at hand, and went about their business knowing we would, in the time agreed, deliver (at least a solid first pass at) useful information.  Now, we can occupy a new version of the role when we take it upon ourselves to curate - select and comment on - information for clients with special interests.  The key differentiator between old style current awareness ("here is today's harvest of content mentioning topic X") and curation ("here is what I believe warrants your time today regarding topic X and why") is … yes, judgment and knowledge.  Some information professionals have shied away from applying it, believing clients are the ones to choose for themselves; however - in my humble opinion - today's realities deny clients the luxury of reviewing large amounts of information.  As business partners with our clients, we owe them the service of curation - intermediation with expertise.  Sure, that will open the age old generalist-vs-subject-matter-specialist conversation … but isn't that a good thing as we keep working to refine our roles and enhance our professional value?

We Are All In Business: Conference of Independent Info Pros (AIIP)

In the title of my 3 February 2011 post pointing to the 3rd series of ASIST essays by my colleagues, I touched on a theme I have always advocated:  No matter what our specific roles as information professionals, we must sell to clients the notion it is worth their while to give us their time (if not money).

Thus, we are all "in business" - offering value added services to clients who pay us with their engagement.  For inspiration in reaching out to clients, look here: Association of Independent Information Professionals holds its 25th annual conference April 7-10 in Vancouver, WA, USA (10 minutes from Portland, Oregon).  Many session topics are relevant for all info pros:

►     Using Social Media to Move Your Business Forward

►     Real Time Marketing and PR

►     How to Write a Winning Proposal  

►     Self Promotion is not a Dirty Word

►     Marketing for Lazy People

►     Price your Services for Success

►     Cha-cha-changes:  Is it Time to Renovate Services?

In addition, three preconference sessions are relevant for info pros anywhere:

► LinkedIn Down and Dirty: Supercharging a profile for attracting clients

► Social Business: Social tools for business and competitive research

► Exhibiting Your Business: Why, Where, and How to

The conference is a splendid example how a community of dedicated professionals can focus on what matters when it comes to reaching out to our clients and explaining our value.

Those who can come to the US Northwest for the conference may meet in person a group of dynamic and forward-looking information professionals.  Everyone else can gain inspiration from perusing the conference program and from pursuing the individual offerings of the presenters.  Have a look!

 

Career Book in Print ... We Offer to Speak on its Key Topics

Last Fall, I announced with great pleasure that Jill Hurst-Wahl's and my book - The Information and Knowledge Management Professional's Career Handbook: Define and Create Your Success - had been sent to the publisher.  After an incredibly smooth process - kudos to the publisher - the book was a physical reality last week:  ISBN 1 84334 608 7  and  ISBN-13: 978 1 84334 608 1.

Published by Chandos (Woodhead) Publishing in the UK, it is distributed in North America by Neal-Schuman.  It may be ordered at Amazon (pre-publication price guarantee) and Barnes & Noble and Neal-Schuman. 

Jill and I hope it will serve as inspiration for our current and future colleagues.  Conceived to offer a set of guidelines for a career  - not as a guide to how to find a job - the book shares our own experience and that of our colleagues "in the real world". 

Jill set up a Facebook page  - we hope you'll check it out!

We now extend an offer to colleagues who may be in a position to arrange meetings and programs for information professionals:  If it's feasible, we will come to speak at your event about the key topics of the book; otherwise we will make ourselves availble on skype or in virtual meetings to address your group.  Let us know of your interest and we will discuss the options for presenting.

Overview and Table of Contents:

Information Professionals and Knowledge Managers deal with significant career challenges for a number of reasons associated (for example) with common misperceptions of their expertise and roles. In environments where they must often justify their work and value over and over, those already in the profession and those just entering need to prepare for a reality that may differ from expectations.  Based on the authors' own extensive experience, the book is intended to give readers a set of tools and techniques with which to secure a strong career, build an effective brand, and succeed as professionals.

1. Introduction:  What is in the book

2. An opaque profession:  Special challenges

3. Knowing who you are:  Determining a good "fit" for you

4. Developing your brand:  The professional image

5. Looking for a job:  Tips and tricks

6. Creating your story:  Crafting a compelling resume

7. Knowing where you want to go:  Plan - but not too much!

8. Navigating corporate waters: Understand organizational psychology

9. Winning support:  Sell your proposals, ideas, and solutions

10. Making the leap to a leading role:  Your first job as the boss

11. Resilience at work:  Thrive even on the challenging days

12. About the money:  Earn what you are worth

13. Passing it on:  Collegial support and mentoring

14. Our colleagues speak:  Career snapshots

15. Jill and Ulla speak:  Our professional journeys

We are all in business: Part III of the ASIST Series now Out

In my 9 October 2010 post, I described the first two parts of a three-part series of articles by independent information professionals published by the Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (see http://www.destrickerblog.com/de_stricker/2010/10/index.html). 

The final part, with insights valid not just for entrepreneurs, is now out at http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-11/Bulletin_FebMar11_Final.pdf  (pages 28-48).  I always encourage information professionals to watch what the self-employed are "up to" … for a simple reason:  In my view we are all in the business of earning our clients' and investors' attention, custom, and support.  Public libraries must prove their value to the community, special libraries must demonstrate to funders that they are worth the cost, and so on.  We must communicate in ways to engage the interest and engagement of our target audiences … just the way any other business must.  In my talks and workshops, I express that view pointedly by asking "what would you say if you were asked why the salaries you and your colleagues earn are worth it to the employer?" and "complete the sentence beginning with YOU PAY ME BECAUSE YOU WANT …". 

Have a look:

• Making It Work as an IIP  
• International Collaboration - Needs, Essentials and Pitfalls 
• Collaborating - Key to Providing Complete Answers Online and Off 
• Independent Information Professionals in Europe: Using Geopolitical and Cultural Boundaries to Advantage 
• How to Generate Income from Teaching and Training
• Think Strategically:  Add Value to Your Business 
• Strategic Communication:  Making Your Marketing and Website Content Work for Your Business

 

 

 

 

 

Nailing the Job Interview: Practice, Practice, then Practice Some More!

Sometimes, candidates with strong qualifications miss out on a job offer because they aren't practiced in the art of answering difficult questions with ease.  Here are two essential recommendations I always stress in my career workshops:

1.  Practice the answers to likely questions over and over until they roll off the tongue smoothly.  During such practice, you will soon notice when a particular phrase sounds odd, when the logic is not quite right, or when a particular formulation doesn't do justice to what you have to offer.  Practicing your answers boosts confidence that you won't end up with ums and ahs and helps you retain poised composure.  If a colleague or friend is not on hand to act as interviewer, a pet or the refrigerator will do just fine!

2.  Dig out and memorize specific stories to illustrate points you want to make.  It is essential to be able to back up with concrete evidence every skill and competence we say we possess.  Prepare anecdotes to tell in response to questions:  "In my position with ABC, there was X situation and I did Y action to achieve Z outcome."  Let me illustrate, using two common questions posed in job interviews:

►YOU HAVE HAD SEVERAL JOBS IN THE LAST 5 YEARS?

In those years, I have probably experienced a disproportionate share of significant organizational change resulting in downsizings or outright department closures.  In no case was my performance at issue, but it has indeed been challenging to deal with quite so much change beyond my control.

►YOUR RESUME STRESSES PLANNING SKILLS.  CAN YOU GIVE MORE DETAIL?

I make it a practice to look ahead and prepare to minimize future effort.  As an example, in my job at ABC Company I anticipated a potential merger and set up long in advance a spreadsheet showing the overlapping functions my boss would need to address; it saved a lot of time for everyone when the merger actually came to pass.  Another example would be the annual meeting I planned for DEF Organization's employees in 2010.  I had the privilege of handling every aspect from program content and speaker engagements to venue selection and catering to registration and logistics, and I'm proud to say the event was smoothly executed and received rave reviews from attendees.

Among the many tips for making a positive impression in an interview, these two are at the top of my list:

1.  The best approach is to be genuine, heeding "truth in advertising" advice.  Of course we all wish to present favorably, but being candid is likely to help us feel more relaxed and to give interviewers a better impression.  For example, if you feel saying "I have experience with …" is a stretch, you may be more comfortable saying "I have had exposure to …".  Speak out loud the various possible statements you could make - your gut will tell you which one is right.

2.  The interview is a trade negotiation.  We want the job, and the employer wants the best candidate.  Hence we compete with other applicants for a position - and the employers compete for the most suitable applicants.  Go in from a position of strength, thinking "just as you want to discover whether you should invest in me, I'm here to find out if the job would be a good career move for me".  You are entitled to ask probing questions about the organization's culture!

There is no shortage of information resources to support job seekers - yet no amount of advice has the impact practice has.  Sure it feels weird talking to the walls at first … but trust me, the effort will pay off!

Roundhouse Kicks: Talk about Speaking the Clients' Language!

It was recently my great pleasure to be at the annual workshop of the Special Libraries Association's Military Division.  An intense and superb multi-day event, the conference offered sessions dealing with a range of topics related to communicating our value to clients and stakeholders - and the focused attention of participants showed the relevance and practical applicability of such topics.  Imagine my delight - as someone who often speaks about the need to communicate with our target audiences in ways that are meaningful to them - when I witnessed Rachel Kingcade, Chief Reference Librarian at the US Marine Corps University Library, describe her use of well known references to martial arts and popular culture in reaching out to and guiding students.  Referring on the library website to steps in the research process as Roundhouse Kicks (think Chuck Norris) and to her own style of work assisting students in their course work as Dr. Evil, she demonstrated  how to put a set of cultural associations to work.  In her environment, metaphors suggesting impact and effect are understood, and the "just do it" approach is routine.  Using those metaphors and that approach to support her message of "you are here to pass your exams and I am here to show you how", Rachel said, helps her reach the students in ways she could not do if she were to dwell on the intrinsic merits of the library resources.  Rachel's sharp illustration of the principle that "it's all about the clients' goals" is being posted at the SLA Military Division's websites http://sladmil.cimes.fsu.edu/ and http://slamilitarylibraries.org/wpcms/.   

I came away with a sense of reassurance that we information professionals are in fact deploying the tactics of adopting our clients' familiar imagery, their aspirational framework, and their cultural frames of reference when we communicate with them.  Sometimes I put my recommended strategy this way:  Our tools and resources are our business, and no one cares how we do what we do.  Let's drop that information to the bottom of our missives and instead zoom in on the simple fact that we are here to help our clients reach their objectives - period.

Rachel Kingcade will be presenting at the annual SLA conference in June 2011 … don't miss it!

Hearts & Minds & Ownership: Social Tools Raise Questions

At the 2010 London Online Information conference, it was once again my privilege to present along with my esteemed colleagues.  In the context of barriers to the use of social tools, Phil Bradley outlined 25 typical objections to their use in the workplace and entertainingly furnished the down-to-earth rejoinders; Bonnie Cheuk spoke convincingly of the need to zero in on the business purpose for any social tools initiative and to assist executives in tailoring the use of social tools for their specific communication needs.  I had chosen as my focus the matter of ownership:  Is there even such a thing when it comes to social tools - and if there is, how could it be used to protect and enhance corporate memory (CM) and knowledge sharing (KS)?

The question regarding ownership arises because social tools in many cases have become a de facto repository of significant aspects of corporate memory and a de facto means for knowledge sharing.  If no one "owns" such a mechanism for CM/KS, what is the fate of organizational learning, institutional knowledge, and intellectual capital?

As a result of their very nature, social tools play into the natural creativity of knowledge workers and their tendency to collaborate to rise to any occasion.  Thus, the social tools exacerbate the traditional tension between proactively investing in systems and infrastructure to capture CM and facilitate KS on the one hand … and "applying search muscle and heroism" retroactively on the other hand.  The number of offerings in the enterprise search market suggests it may be perceived to be too late, in any other than a startup organization, to take the proactive just-in-case approach:  The cost of intellectual content management is too difficult to justify in many environments.  Similarly, the complexity of devising a mechanism whereby knowledge workers may learn of their colleagues' activities at the right time defies upfront solutions and prescribed processes.

So how can we work the social tools - and the inherent human desire to communicate with peers - to the advantage of CM/KS?  What could managers do to encourage practices and behaviors that will benefit the collective memory and access to knowledge?  It is well known how actions that are rewarded get repeated; what rewards will strengthen the likelihood a knowledge worker will take the extra two minutes to contribute an insight into the communal heritage - given the typical time pressures they experience?  Is it feasible to design and institutionalize a certain set of practices (over and above, let's say, the document/records management systems imposed by the regulatory environment)?  How does one foster a culture in which everyone willingly does his or her part to use social tools appropriately to protect knowledge for the future?

In our presentations, Phil Bradley, Bonnie Cheuk, and I naturally could only touch on the highlights of the questions raised by social tools.  It was striking, though, how the sizable audience remained intently focused in a late-in-the-day session.  I took it as a sign how the challenges associated with CM and KS in today's organizations occupy the hearts and minds of information professionals. 

Getting Ready for Your First Job: So Much to Learn - Start Here

In the last few weeks I had the pleasure once again to spend a day with soon-to-be-newly-minted holders of the MLIS degree, discussing the skills required to succeed in the world we so often describe as "real".  As workplaces undergo considerable change in these times, it is more than ever essential for new graduates without previous full time work experience to be prepared for the norms and expectations characteristic of organizational cultures; for that reason I emphasize the "soft skills" topic during "Career Day" events.  Usually triggered by the question "should courses and grades be on one's resume?", our conversation focuses on the simple but - in the context of the work load in graduate school - stunning fact that supervisors and coworkers rarely care about academic achievements.  Instead, they care greatly about skills in adapting to the needs of the workplace, working on teams, dealing with clients, representing the employer professionally, and so on.

The thrust of the conversation was captured previously in a concise and illuminating article by Alvin Schrader, former Professor at the University of Alberta School of Library and Information Studies: "Hitchhiking Across Cultures from the Classroom to the Workplace" (Feliciter, Issue 2, 2008, p. 43 at http://www.cla.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Vol_54_No_2&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=5255).  Alvin zeroes in on the steep learning curve many graduates must climb when they move out of an environment centered on individual learning, outlines the stark contrasts between the academic and organizational environments, and makes practical recommendations for ways employers and graduates alike can facilitate the transition:  "The classroom is about intellect, while the workplace is about leadership."

Dear graduates, as you get ready for that life-changing first day on the job, do yourself a favor by paying close attention to the insights Alvin offers.  In addition, let me suggest: 

• Read up on the industry or sector in question:  What developments are having an impact on the work of organizations like the one you will be entering, and what challenges could they therefore expect?
• Find out as much as you can about your new employer:  Use your research skills to shed light on the past and likely future of the specific environment where you will be working. 
• Brush up on the key elements of emotional intelligence and interpersonal communication:  You will need considerable social nimbleness given the work relationships likely to exist in your new group of colleagues. 
• Lean on colleagues who have gone before you:  What did the graduates from a few years ago learn as they started their first jobs?  What could seasoned colleagues tell you?  (Oh, and you know where to find these colleagues - in the relevant professional association.) 
• Finally:  Don't be afraid to ask questions of your new boss and new team!  Asking shows you are interested in performing well and acting appropriately, and it's better to ask than to assume and be off the mark.

With such preparation, success should be well within your reach.  For those I haven't yet had the privilege of meeting:  See you at the next Career Day event! 

Sharing What We Know: Our Professional Tradition

At the recent Internet Librarian International conference in London UK (www.internet-librarian.com/2010/) I once again had the privilege of meeting with colleagues from all over the world to find out what they are working on, hear about their latest ideas and innovations, see what the concept of “user friendly systems” can mean, and so on.  In addition, the conference is a superb vehicle for catching up with old friends and meeting new ones.  As always, I appreciate the organizers’ efforts to create a dynamic environment for interacting and building on those social networks of ours.

In particular, the conference afforded me the opportunity to catch up with Jane Macoustra – an international information professional of the first order – and hold her new book Global Research without Leaving Your Desk (Chandos, 2010, ISBN 978-1-843343660 - www.woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=1795&ChandosTitle=1).   In it, Jane puts her 27 years of worldwide research experience to use for the benefit of readers, showcasing resources even seasoned researchers may not have come across.  Jane’s emphasis on understanding how information is collected and treated in various parts of the world – so as to “consider the source” at an entirely deeper level – is an eye opener, and the richness of practical tips (e.g. how to mine discussion lists and blogs and leverage social media, how to search anonymously) is impressive.  I hand it to Jane for compressing so much valuable information into her guide and for having committed to updating it.

I see collegial sharing as one of the prominent characteristics of information professionals, so Jane’s book illustrates for me the “sharing what we know” attitude I have admired for as long as I have been in the profession (and continue to strive to emulate).  Amassing what we have learned during the course of our careers and distilling it into a practical tool for others is our hallmark and a habit I hope we will never lose. 

Jane’s book will be a useful “case in point” for encouraging those entering the profession to be diligent in keeping in the back of their minds the questions “How could I one day share what I have learned to help speed others on their way?  What are the lessons I could pass along?  How could I save others the time and effort in finding out for themselves?  What would be the best way to offer a heads-up so as to point out potential pitfalls and lead the way to golden gems?"  Granted, younger professionals tell me they have a lot on their plates getting oriented in their first jobs, but I want to encourage them anyway:  You, too, will one day be in Jane's shoes, having an awful lot of high-value material to share!

Feedback: Have You Given Yours Today?

Recent email yielded two out-of-the-blue items of feedback.  The first read:  "I just finished reading your article in the July/August 2009 issue of Information Outlook (v.13, no.5) entitled Creating Influence through 'Being There'.  Very informative.  The piece on social capital is bang on!  I found the article educational and I have made a copy of it part of my leadership learning arsenal." 

As I always do, I sent a note of thanks.  It is indeed terrific to find out how work we have done has made a difference for others.

The second correspondent said "Thank you very much for coming to speak at our roundtable discussion. A few of our [SLA Chapter] members have requested to contact you with feedback. Would it be alright if I provided your email address to them so they could contact you directly?" My reply here, of course, was "But of course!".  (And I look forward to continuing the conversation we had at the roundtable.)

Sharing reactions is fundamental to our professional networks.  We should never hold back or believe anyone would be uninterested in what we have to say.  Here's why:  Feedback rewards us for our contributions to the community and helps us stay motivated to continue to grow as professionals and contribute - to individuals personally or generally through such activities as writing.  Feedback lets us know what's useful, what we could work on improving, and what questions still remain.  Feedback keeps us connected and keeps us fresh.

The next time we are at an event and a speaker hands out an evaluation form, we will of course provide our "ratings", but let's consider adding a personal - constructive - comment to help him or her further develop the presentation material or delivery.  Should we come across a colleague's written material and notice it needs a bit of help or could otherwise be improved, let's offer input.  If a colleague's comments in a meeting were particularly effective, let's say so and say why.  It's gratis, aside from the minute or two it may take.  In case of any anxiety over how feedback may be received, one approach I have often used is to ask prior permission:  "Are you interested in hearing my impressions?"  It would be unusual to encounter a lack of interest, and my experience is that even when some feedback may be slightly uncomfortable, in the long run the recipient is grateful for it.  I know I am!

So … have you given feedback to a colleague today?

 

Compensating for Lack of (Recent) Experience to Inspire Employer Confidence: Guest Post by Alexis Bonari

My readers know I provide recommendations for resume construction in frequent seminars and online (see http://www.destricker.com/en/seminars.html).  It is my pleasure to provide Alexis Bonari's supplemental commentary on the conundrum of "lack of (recent) experience":

Alexis Bonari is a freelance writer and resident blogger at College Scholarships.org.

If you have had poor luck with job opportunities, needed to attend to family matters for some years, or just want to get back in on the vocational action after a long absence, you may feel at a disadvantage. It can be frustrating and difficult to find ways around the obvious requirement of experience, but here are some tips.  Careful preparation, knowledge of your expertise relative to your desired field of work, and attention to detail can help you overcome your lack of experience to land you a new job.

Assess What You Have to Offer

Analyze the situation from the viewpoint of your potential employer. Which attributes do you possess that might contribute to the advancement of the company? Do you have something more valuable than experience? Don't forget you may have some fresh ideas for the potential employer as a result of your volunteer or internship experience. Strong personal qualities such as excellent self-motivation, well-channeled passion, professional curiosity, and thoughtful innovation can be highly attractive to employers who are not by legal regulation required to fill positions with individuals meeting predetermined requirements for recent experience. What you need to project a positive image to prospective employers is a strategy to showcase these qualities: draft some responses to potential interview questions that demonstrate your fit with the company and the job opening. Making everything fit together seamlessly goes a long way toward convincing an employer that you’re the right choice. Some background research may be necessary, so naturally you act like the info pro you are and search for background on the company and information about the likely characteristics of the job.

Stay Connected to the Professional World

Temporary work, volunteer work, and participation in conferences relevant to your career and expertise can provide evidence that you are professionally motivated, determined to make the most of your time, and engaged in the networking opportunities.  Search local newspapers or other publications for temporary and volunteer positions, freelance writing opportunities, and upcoming conference events.

Refresh Your Skills

If you have been out of practice for a while, you may want to brush up on some specific skills currently in demand due to technological progress. Online courses, community college classes, or just consistent practice can help you develop your skills and thus feel confident in answering pointed interview questions.

Reformat Your Resume?

Some resume advisors recommend listing experience according to skill sets or experience as opposed to providing chronological evidence of work.  No matter what your choice, it will help to feature some recent volunteer or temporary experience to fill in any gaps.  Feature in your resume a qualifications summary  including a headline, one or two short paragraphs about your experience, and a list of specific areas of expertise such as computer skills and interpersonal communications.

Could Recording Presentations in Advance Be a Confidence Builder?

Driven in large part by the many times my colleagues and I have talked about career related questions, I offered to, and in the Fall of 2009 had the pleasure to, deliver a series of career related presentations to the Toronto Chapter of Special Libraries Association.  One of the questions raised during those sessions was how to avoid going blank when asked such predictable job interview questions as "please describe a situation in which you handled … ".  I'll get back to that in a second.

 

Since then, entrepreneurial Cabot Yu - who sets up many a professional event through Canadian Library Association - has arranged several re-deliveries (all in one day!) for students and information professionals; most recently he arranged for the recording of "studio" versions anyone may view and listen to at www.destricker.com/en/seminars.html.  Two down, two more to go - but I would be most pleased to entertain suggestions for new topics to add to the series.

 

Creating the recordings was, as they say, an "interesting experience".  Here's why: 

 

When speaking live to an audience, I benefit hugely from the interaction with the participants.  We share common experiences, roll our eyes collectively, listen to each others' stories, and so on.  It never occurs to me to memorize what I'm presenting because I experience the activity as a conversation.  Sure, the slides provide direction for my comments but by and large, I use the attendees' input to guide me in determining where to put emphasis, when to throw in an illustrative anecdote, and how to respond to questions.  More importantly, the live environment compensates for any half-completed sentences, segues, pauses, and other characteristics of interactive speaking because the audience members and I can see each other.  So much of the message conveyed derives from the body language happening while I move around, throw up my hands, etc.

 

Speaking into a microphone, knowing the recording will be listened to in future and not here-and-now as in a broadcast webinar, is - trust me - a most restrictive experience.  I soon found out that "just talking" the way I do in person simply wasn't on.  Every "um" and hesitation stood out like a sore thumb and made me lose track.  I needed to hit the keyboard and craft exactly what I wanted to say to each slide.  (I assiduously avoid reading out the slide wording viewers can perfectly well read for themselves.)  It was reassuring to know I could record each 20-40 second sound snippet repeatedly until it rolled reasonably smoothly off the tongue - and if I couldn't make that happen, I changed the words!

 

Then it hit me:  Could it be that writing out and recording the anecdotes needed in job interviews might be a means of overcoming sudden speechlessness?  Could it be that for those of my colleagues who say they are terrified of speaking to a meeting of executives or at a public event, the act of recording their remarks would help them become comfortable with the flow of the material and hence more confident in the live delivery?  Could it be that listening to the recordings would help them edit the wording for the next practice session? 

 

It's just a thought.  Who's to know you practiced with your computer mike until you had your "tracks" down in your head?

The Internet and Our Brains: How do we Come to the Aid of Bombarded Clients?

Nicholas Carr, high-profile author and controversial proponent of the view that the Internet, social media, and all our gadgetry - I'll use as a collective name "all the flashing and beeping" - are altering the way contemporary human brains function, was the concluding keynote speaker at the recent Special Libraries Association annual conference.  As if to illustrate in person an experience contrasting today's bombardment, Mr. Carr's delivery evoked academic lectures of the past - a lectern reading of a fairly densely written speech requiring focus and attention on the part of the listener.  Quietly, he outlined a vision of a world in which our capacity to reason and solve problems is diminished because our brains have been conditioned to "go with" crowd wisdom and the quick fix of whatever information happens to surface when we look at our screens.  He summarized the concern that all the flashing and beeping will degrade people's ability to dig deep, to reflect, and to form well-reasoned opinions, and to his credit he ended the talk by considering how information professionals might deal with such a development.  To their credit, audience members grabbed his message in some well positioned questions and comments illustrating the very value of expertise in sifting substance from shine.

 

Those holding views opposing Carr's argue that the internet and our gadgetry is nothing more than a reflection of ourselves - a means allowing us to splash our ideas and conversations around the world in no time whereas our reach in the past was much slower and less global when traditional publishing mechanisms and telephone calls had us waiting months, weeks, or at least days before "hearing back".

 

The discussion is flourishing on the internet (!) and will no doubt take off in a number of directions as various professional domains continue to apply it in their unique spaces.

 

Since hearing Carr speak, I have pondered "is he right?"  What is the impact of the fact that typical knowledge workers today - the ones I meet in the course of working on projects, my colleagues, and I - are "interrupted" constantly by messages and meetings and spend too much time poring over busy and animated search result screens, looking for something relevant?   What can info pros do for knowledge workers who are run off their feet, arrive late to meetings because they were held up in a previous one, have their PDAs go off every few minutes, and so on?  (No wonder stress levels are off the chart, but that's another conversation.)

 

The challenges for information professionals supporting client populations bombarded with all the flashing and beeping add up:  It may be difficult even to get enough of our clients' time to find out what they're up to in their work so we can diagnose needs and design services to match; our messages may be lost in the stream of other messages arriving on their screens and devices; and they may be forced to make do with what they can find quickly because the deadline is 20 minutes away.

 

My modest proposal in that context - built on the evolution of our roles from service providers to business partners - is simple, though likely not so simple to implement.  It follows the philosophy that preparation, planning, and contextual knowledge pay off.  It is unrealistic to expect knowledge workers to consult with info pros day to day, but another type of relationship is worth considering:  When info pros are briefed as to a team's upcoming projects, they are in a position (1) to prepare "backgrounders" to relieve the team members of the effort associated with foundational research, and (2) to monitor for and supply highly targeted notifications of new material of potential interest.  There is no point in joining the barrage our clients deal with every day … our job is to reach them just in time with just the material they need to avoid spending any more of their precious time than they must in that noisy place Carr warns against.  Imagine that - equipped with the latest in technology and tools, our aim is to provide our clients a refuge from it all!

 

PS:  Care to guess how many audience members were tweeting Nicholas Carr's talk?  He rests his case.

Use the Hallways - They are More Productive than They Look!

The fact that "schmoozing" can be a powerful means of building networks is well known - yet some colleagues tell me they are uncomfortable approaching and chatting up people "just like that".  Let me share some recent and compelling evidence I hope will encourage even those who think of themselves as introverts to be deliberate about reaching out to others.  Surprising results could ensue for your projects, initiatives, and teams.

 

From my 12 June 2010 post, readers know I was in New Orleans at the 2010 annual conference of Special Libraries Association, this time in the role of candidate for election to the SLA Board of Directors.  In addition to giving formal presentations - my videotaped response to "How does SLA help members be essential in the knowledge economy?" is on SLA TV at http://www.slatv.org/media.cfm?c=758&m=3404&s=133& - the entire group of candidates had been encouraged by current board members to be proactive in attending the many social events and generally to "get out there". 

 

Doing so cemented my life long experience that at a professional event, no one is a stranger and no one objects to being approached.  In the days of traversing the conference venues, I met scores of "new" colleagues - some for a few moments, others for lengthy in-depth discussions … just by saying hello.  Cards were exchanged, further connections made (I'll put you in touch with so-and-so), and astonishing coincidences with significant implications were discovered.  Several chance encounters ended with "I'm so glad we had this conversation", and a few times I finally encountered in person someone well known to me from his or her publications.

 

Of course, well established professionals make a point of introducing new entrants to their colleagues, knowing from experience how much it benefits all parties.  For anyone less sure how to "work the crowd", here are some suggestions for what to do in the hallways and at receptions when people are not obviously rushing or reading email:

 

§   Keep many business cards on hand.  Ideally, the card should be customized to remind recipients why they have it and why they may want to connect again.  For example, an annotation could read "Seeking employment in digitization projects".  The back of the card can be used for a "mini resume".

 

§   Variations of "So far, what has been the best experience for you here?" could be a good opener.  It is useful to learn how colleagues perceive the event - and conference organizers appreciate the input!

 

§   If you see someone on his or her own, walk up, stick your hand out and be direct: "Hi, I'm Ulla from Toronto - are you enjoying the conference?"  Chances are the person you approach welcomes being greeted.  (In the unlikely event he or she signals a desire to be left alone, just move on.)

 

§   You are entitled to go beyond small talk: "May I ask what you are looking for when filling a position like the one you described?"

 

§   Look for something to offer, be it professional or personal:  "Would you like me to prepare a brief usability critique of your website?" or "I'll be happy to suggest great places to eat in Toronto that aren't in the guidebooks".

 

The conference organizers are to be commended for including a First Timers Meet & Greet to kickstart the schmoozing.  Feedback was overwhelmingly enthusiastic and I pass on to anyone who is planning a professional event the suggestion to provide a formal opportunity for newbies to meet their seasoned colleagues.

Social Collaboration: The Beautiful Combination of In-Person and Virtual Sharing

It was my privilege to be part of two recent professional events showcasing the power of collaboration:  One was large in scale and a beehive of sessions and activity – the 2010 annual conference of Canadian Library Association; the other was intimate but no less powerful – a collegial exploration of library services to teenagers organized by Stephanie Vollick (see clasy.wordpress.com for details on the “Canadian Libraries Are Serving Youth” event).

 

In both cases, I was struck by the richness of ideas emerging equally from the orchestrated sessions and the hallway or reception discussions.  Many a challenge in front of information professionals was subjected to the creativity of attendees, and it was obvious how much it meant to those present to have an opportunity to exchange direct experience and on-the-ground knowledge.  Pens were whipped out (“what was that URL again?”) and dates were made for further discussions among those who had just discovered they were working on similar projects.

 

Cabot Yu, active events organizer in CLA, coined the phrase “conference is our social collaboration space” in a conversation focusing on the need for both in-person and virtual means of communicating.  That’s when we came up with a little jingle that both are fine but the combination is divine.

 

I am further privileged to be attending the annual conference of Special Libraries Association (www.sla.org). I long ago lost count how many SLA conferences I have enjoyed – for decades, I have witnessed the evolution of the event and the association through the powerful lens provided by several thousand information professionals converging in one space.  Here, too, we are seeing the double power of personal and virtual exchange and the dedication of those who work diligently to share knowledge with their colleagues.

 

In a recent post, I stressed how conferences are not a luxury but rather an investment in our careers.  It is gratifying to see how many colleagues are turning up in New Orleans, expressing by their presence that they see it that way, too.  The beauty is that now – unlike decades ago – we have so many social networking tools for supplementing what we gain from meeting in person.  The offer of virtual conference attendance at this year’s SLA conference points in a direction I find so very encouraging:  How can we share with those who were not able to travel?

 

PS:  This year, I am honored to be on the slate of candidates for election to SLA’s Board of Directors.  It is a continued privilege to have the opportunity to engage with the professional community – more on that matter in the months to come.

Information Professionals as Sources for the Media: Reply to a Comment

Thank you to Connie Crosby for her comment on my most recent blog describing the HARO service (www.helpareporter.com).  Connie states in part:

Having been interviewed and quoted a few of times in industry and mainstream news, I am slowly coming to understand what makes a good interview for the media. One thing I was slow to learn is that [reporters] are usually looking for a criticism, and it is a challenge to sound positive while still being critical. And more often than not a soundbite from an interview is what appears, pulling it out of context and possibly leading to misinterpretation. I'm wondering, therefore, if you have come across any resources for learning how to be interviewed by reporters? Is this a type of literacy we, as information professionals, should be developing?

Perusing the requests for experts, I come to the conclusion most HARO reporters are looking for individuals whose credentials in a subject (bone health), expertise in an industry (adventure travel), or personal experience (online dating) will lend gravitas and interest to their stories - as opposed to looking for opinion on breaking news or politics.  Hence I believe we information professionals could safely offer to speak to a reporter looking for input, say, on ebooks, search engines, libraries, archives, and so on - always wrapping our comments around references to authoritative sources of substantiating information but also offering our professional insight.

Connie Crosby has a point when she suggests any media interview could result in out-of-context quotes (rarely do we get to 'vet' what the reporter is writing or saying). The PR profession offers resources for spokespersons dealing with media interactions over controversial matters calling for skill in "spin"; we information professionals would typically be in a position to comment factually and with authority on the evidence available in a matter based on the credible sources.  As an example, we can provide our analysis of the impact of proposed copyright legislation, illustrating with references to various other commentators and relevant organizations what differences of opinion may exist - and then add our professional view ("the proposed measures pose a dilemma because ...").  There is no way to prevent a reporter from extracting our words from the context ... so yes indeed, I join Connie in looking for ways to speak whereby we can minimize the risk of having our comments distorted.

For me, the bottom line is to promote the use of authoritative sources in media stories. Information professionals should *so* check out HARO because it will - in my opinion - broaden our opportunities to inject credible information references into the reporters' stories.  An imaginary response from us to a request for commentators on personal finance could read "In addition to the experts' quotes in your story, you should be sure to refer to the following authoritative sources and here's why".

The HARO Expertise/Media Marketplace: Information Professionals Should *So* Check It Out

At the recent annual conference of the Association of Independent Information Professionals, a highlight speaker was Peter Shankman, founder of HARO, Help a Reporter Out (www.helpareporter.com).  In hugely entertaining terms, he described how he had come to establish the free market where reporters, researchers, and writers meet experts who have information to offer.

 

According to the testimonials of career-changing media exposures and the number of members of the HARO family, HARO is today’s perfect rendition of ‘do you know anyone who …’ – at a global scale.  The concept is that reporters post requests – let’s say “I am looking for experts to quote in an article on rooftop gardens in cool climates to be published in [X magazine] and my deadline is [date]”.  Those who have knowledge on the topic may submit directly to the reporter a “pitch” and the reporter takes it from there.

 

HARO is an information professional’s mecca because it permits discovery of specialized and local knowledge at a range of subjects and with a regional specificity never before possible.  I encourage my readers to take a look at HARO and to assess how it may of service to stakeholders, and of course I encourage my colleagues to register as "sources".  Never know what kind of esoteric request we just happen to know about! 

Talk about a dream job: LinkedIn to open office in Canada, will need staff

Having had a profile on LinkedIn for a very long time, I was recently surprised to find that some MLIS students weren't familiar with the service.  I suggested in the strongest possible terms that they get busy creating their profiles later the same day!

LinkedIn management may not instinctively look to the information profession to fill upcoming positions in the just-announced new office in Canada … but we could encourage it.  Have a look at the Financial Post article at http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2738867 and be sure to check out the links to related stories … great food for thought there.

In the business of connecting people and information and connecting people with people, we information professionals are in a position to offer the LinkedIn team our experience with content management including the applicable categorization and labeling, usability, alerting services, and collaboration tools (to name just a few relevant areas).  We could turn out to be a good source of product development suggestions; one coming quickly to mind is that a template or similar tool would be helpful in assisting profile writers go beyond the standard resume-like model to include descriptions of skills in such a way as to demonstrate their transferability.  In fact, a transferable-skills focus might just be a good angle for the new auto-match feature being tested now http://blog.linkedin.com/2010/03/22/linkedin-profile-match/.

LinkedIn has demonstrated impressive product development over its lifetime.  Wouldn't it be one cool job to help the team continue? 

Are Information Seeking Modes and Styles Associated with Professions?

In discussions with knowledge workers about their information requirements, several distinct modes of looking for something tend to surface.  Two common ones are "I need to stay on top of every new publication, conference paper, and blog post dealing with X" or "I want to trace the evolution of current opinion regarding Y".  In the first case, the driver is a desire to insure against missing information.  The second case represents a look back to benefit from accumulated evidence or accumulated context - something may not have grabbed our attention when it first appeared, but now it does.  (The looking-back mode is, of course, illustrated in end-of-year and end-of-decade top-10 lists in which commentators review events or  developments to assess what, in retrospect, stands out or appears to have future implications.)  Information professionals are well positioned to serve information seekers in those two modes.

 

 

In a third mode, it's trickier: "I don't know what I'm looking for, but I'll recognize it when I see it".  Here, the information seekers typically wish to mine a wide range of information sources for nuggets triggering ideas or connections, and information professionals rely on their understanding of the clients' projects and concerns, and on "more-like-that" and "forget-that" feedback, to refine their ability to serve up candidate material potentially containing items of interest.

 

 

To these seeking modes we then add individual seeking styles:  On one end of a spectrum, some seekers have high tolerance for volume and don't mind scanning through a lot of stuff and following links "just in case something interesting turns up" - in fact appreciate the serendipity - while on the other end, seekers look for information in a systematic way using a set of tried-and-true sources, aiming to isolate quickly a specific answer for the question at hand.  Seeking style has a further component associated with  how much experience a knowledge worker has, how intensely he or she communicates with the peer  community, and other aspects influencing confidence that "enough evidence has been collected for the purpose".

 

 

Are the various modes and styles associated with subject matter or professions?  Shannon Wills thinks so, based on her experience with the way engineers go about looking for information.  shannonwills23@gmail.com writes for toponlineengineeringdegree.com and  sent me this comment:

"Those with formal training in an engineering discipline look for and apply information differently from the rest of us.  They look for information in a logical sequence, first researching potential sources and then deciding if these sources are viable and reliable.  Once they have confirmed the authoritativeness of sources, they go about looking for the information they want in a rational and ordered way. Engineers know what to discard and what to retain, and they’re adept at putting together all they glean from different sources into a form that makes sense and is true to what they need in a given situation. An engineer would prefer a map rather than verbal or written directions."  

 

It could be argued that a preference for precision or comfort with ambiguity might simultaneously inform an individual's choice of academic study and his or her preferred mode and style of information seeking.  On the other hand, so many other factors play a role that it may be impossible to connect information seeking behavior to professions beyond some generalizations. (Thesis topic, anyone?)

As information professionals, we need a hefty dollop of insight into our clients' individual information seeking modes and styles - and we need to recognize how those modes and styles might change over time as project life cycles evolve, as extrinsic events impinge on policy making, as experts acquire experience, and so on.  That's why I use the term "information diagnostic" when describing the activity of getting to know the daily reality in which our current and potential clients work:   We diagnose not only what they (think they) need, but also how they prefer to ingest any information we may provide, how much they can absorb at any given time, how wide a net to cast in order to be able to draw their attention to items they would likely never see on their own, etc.  Understanding the information seeking modes and styles of the individuals we serve, quite apart from our professional expertise in the relevant information sources, is key to building the trust-based professional relationship we wish to have with them.

Publishing's March: Part 3 - Implications for Info Pros

(Continued from December 9 and 13)

 

What does it mean for Info Pros when our clients work with transitory "publications" assembled on their screens on the fly (think http://livingstories.googlelabs.com/)?  How do we assist users who participate in scholarly forums and thus exchange ideas and observations outside the traditional publishing channels?  What do we need to do differently vis a vis a younger clientele accustomed to the kind of information gathering typical of social networks?

In our current context, we are already working with the social networking tools and with the open source community in order to straddle the span from traditional publishing and dissemination mechanisms to the evolving ones.  We continue to be ideally placed to act as connectors between the long established and the new means of publishing - and thus of knowledge sharing, too.

Our future challenge is assessing how best to support our clients.  For example, how do we balance work to ease access to and use of scholarly publishers' materials versus work to help clients navigate the ecosystem Michael Nielsen talked about (see my November 13 post), and how do we support the educational community's need to provide for mobile learning at the same time we sustain the original academic learning environment?

One useful guiding principle could be that we strive to be viewed as information partners and "secret sauce for success" by our clients - as opposed to being seen as advocates of certain approaches to information gathering.  The fact that we may demonstrate qualitative and other differences among sources of information and among tools is a strength to apply when appropriate; our message is "come talk to us, together we will work out what is best for you to save time and get what you need" rather than "we represent an official standard in information practices".  (Our clients may well come to hold the view we are the gold standard, but it's best they form such an opinion on their own.)

It is equally essential for us to work closely with the developers of existing and new sharing tools, public ones as well as those intended for internal use in an organization.  Herein lies a special challenge in that such developers may not leap to the conclusion - as Google is widely reported to have done - that they need librarians on their teams! 

On January 21, I'll be joining colleagues on a career oriented panel event organized by the SLA Toronto Student Group:  Yet another opportunity to reinforce the message "the publishing industry is on a march and we need to be in it!"

Publishing's March: Part 2 - Users as Co-Publishers

(Continuation from November 9)

 

Possibly one of the more impressive features of the broader world of publishing is the degree to which users are now involved as contributors of content.   Here are just a few examples; Thad McIlroy's collage of resources on www.futureofpublishing.com is worth reviewing for additional pointers to the evolution of publishing as we knew it. 

 

1.  User-submitted photos in Panoramio enhance Google's Earth service. 

 

2.  Commentators on the announcement of automatic captioning of English-language YouTube videos speculated that user-submitted captions for non-English language videos might not be far behind.  

 

3.  Stanford University students may now submit their dissertations directly to Google instead of or in addition to submitting it for a fee to ProQuest.  A representative from that company in my audience raised the matter of value-add features such as indexing, guaranteed preservation, and more - and I completely agree those features are worthwhile; however it is a practical option for students to consider letting Google hold their work in its growing global repository.  (See "Google publishes Stanford dissertations online" in the 16 November 2009 San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/16/BA721AK4NV.DTL&type=printable.)   

 

4.  International scientist Michael Nielsen comments:  "What’s new today is the flourishing of an ecosystem of startups that are experimenting with new ways of communicating research, some radically different to conventional journals. Consider Chemspider, the excellent online database of more than 20 million molecules, recently acquired by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Consider Mendeley, a platform for managing, filtering and searching scientific papers … or consider startups like SciVee (YouTube for scientists), the Public Library of Science … and dozens more. And then there are companies like Wordpress, Friendfeed and Wikimedia that weren’t started with science in mind, but are increasingly helping scientists communicate their research."  (MichaelNielsen.org blog "Is Scientific Publishing about to be Disrupted?" June 29, 2009)

  

What do such new types of publishing scenarios mean for information professionals' work?

 

(To be continued)

 

Publishing's March: Part 1 - From Static to Dynamic

At the recent Online Information 2009 event in London UK, I had the pleasure of keynoting the "Publishers Stepping Up to the Challenge" track on December 3.  Preparing for the talk turned out to be an exciting discovery as it provided an opportunity to review examples of the evolving definition of the concept of publishing. 

 

Inspired by Stephen E. Arnold's series of books on Google - in my humble opinion required reading for anyone in the publishing industry - www.infonortics.com/publications/google/google-trilogy.html - and by articles by Noah Richler and Alex Hutchinson in the November 2009 issue of The Walrus, I selected as a key theme the increasingly dynamic - in some cases fleeting - nature of publishing and the varying involvement and effort of users in the process.

 

For starters, publishing is a means to an end - we don't value or pay for it in its own right.  We pay to find things, learn, be entertained, and so on.  Therefore, publishing must evolve to meet the demands of our evolving styles living, learning, researching, and communicating. Contrast  the old style of publishing - going from hand writing through typesetting through printing, where the consumer had no participation in the process until the book or journal issue was in hand - versus the contemporary wiki and annotation mechanisms allowing for participation throughout the process of making information accessible.  Come to think of it, the distinction between "public" and "published" is blurring.

 

Compare the use of an old fashioned map - where the user must interpret a two-dimensional image from above, transform it into a mental three-dimensional image "from the side" and devise a strategy for getting from point A to point B - with today's GPS commands getting truck drivers stuck in unsuitable narrow alleys.  We like the convenience of the GPS systems, but as Alex Hutchinson suggested in "Global Impositioning Systems"  (http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.11-health-global-impositioning-systems/, they may lead us to abdicate judgment.

 

The ever smaller granularity of published items - $.99 individual book chapters at Shortcovers.com, personalized selections of various materials at Bookriff.com to make one-of-a-kind assemblies - has consequences of various kinds, one being our ability to trace them. There is another implication:  Noah Richler in "Turning the Page" http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.11-business-turning-the-page/ refers to the stunning effect of the consignment scheme, invented by Max Schuster in the 1930s and saving the book publishing industry then:  That scheme sees 24 million more books trucked around to book stores in Canada each year than are sold.  That's 200,000 lost trees, lots of fuel, and lots of book pulp.  Could more kindle reading save some of those trees?

 

To be continued …

What's in a Name? Research, that's What

Last week, Special Libraries Association Toronto Chapter members Rebecca Jones and Kim Silk presented, and led a discussion about, the SLA Alignment Project research resulting - for now - in the name-change vote currently taking place (the research is described at http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/alignment/portal/index.html).  It deserves attention that the research was not focused on the name concern, but broadly on the perceptions held "out there" of the information profession, its practitioners, and the roles performed by them.  As the research results rolled in, they so strongly pointed to a weakness in the association's name that it was deemed necessary to act on that particular aspect sooner rather than later - but the project is far wider.

 

The research sheds light on a wide range of challenges we need to confront in order to enhance and sustain our perceived relevance for stakeholders, and prominent among them is the fact that the language we tend to use in describing our work doesn't resonate the way we might have thought it does among senior managers.  In other words, as the saying goes, "what we have here is a failure to communicate".  As we work to construct our value proposition - associating our expertise and functions with positive outcomes and advantages for the organizations we serve - we can only benefit from paying close attention to the messages and terms that "play well" in the conversation we have with our stakeholders, just as it's helpful to know what terminology doesn't support the conversation well.

 

The research informs long range efforts for the association on our behalf and provides tools we may all adopt individually as time goes on.  It confirms observations my colleagues and I have made over many years of project work:  It doesn't matter how strategic the work of information professionals is and how expertly it's performed if decision makers' perception is that we are unnecessary.  It supports my experience that it's inadvisable to engage in marketing until we have a thorough understanding how we are seen and understood by those who control the budgets:  What roles do they believe we fulfill?  What difference do they believe our work makes for the organization?  What impact do they think our efforts have on the employees who "do the business of the business"?

 

Some of those in attendance had been invited to focus groups held as part of the research.  They related vividly just how difficult it was to hear some of what the non-librarian participants in the focus groups had to say. It may be painful to learn how our work is viewed by decision makers, but we need the insight.  Only when thus equipped are we in a position to engage in "that conversation with stakeholders".

 

Once again, it was plain how engaged information professionals are in their profession.  As noted in my last post, I believe the unprecedented level of participation in the discussions sparked by the proposed name change will in the end have positive results:  These discussions are making us all think. Hard.

What's in a Name? Identity, that's What

Having recently had the privilege of giving a workshop at the 11th Internet Librarian International conference in London (http://www.internet-librarian.com/2009/), I was enjoying the company of my professional peers, discussing with them a wide variety of topics according to the wide variety of specializations represented among us when suddenly "it" began traveling the halls.  "It" was the announcement of a proposed new name for 100-year-old Special Libraries Association.

 

In the days since then, the discussions have billowed through the virtual halls of the social media, reflecting a level of engagement I haven't seen since … perhaps ever.  The posts have shone a sharp light on the fact that our work eludes description in a single association name with an elegant, easily pronounced acronym.  The domains in which holders of library and information science degrees are active have broadened in step with the introduction of technologies and tools - so much so that a unifying designation is beyond us.

 

John Cotton Dana got around the naming challenge when he founded SLA by choosing the word "Libraries" as opposed to "Librarians" (although it's interesting to note that the name was a compromise even then).  By now, it's clear our association name ought to focus on the individual's contribution rather than on any entity in which he or she is active … but that's where the consensus ends.

 

So who are we?  The name debate reveals that we may each have a strong sense of our own professional identity but that such personal definitions are just that.  Much of the sentiment bubbling to the surface touches on "that's not who I am", "the new name would be just as incomprehensible to decision makers as the old one was so I still can't use it", and similar versions of an opinion that the new name won't solve a problem that has dogged us for as long as we can remember: The opaqueness of our profession.  As an example of a profession without that challenge, physicians may occupy myriad specialty positions yet are comfortable with the collective name - and they rarely find themselves having to explain to anyone the nature of what they do for a living!  But here's the key for me:  Physicians enjoy a pervasive societal understanding of their role and the outcome of their work. We don't.

 

We will likely never solve the vocabulary puzzle, for the simple reason that the impacts we have are too difficult to characterize succinctly in any way to do them justice.  Judging from the many conversations I have had with fellow professionals for decades about our choice of vocation, many of us share the hindsight realization that whatever mental image we may have had when we signed up for graduate school was blown out of the water if not in our first job then certainly soon thereafter.  Never mind, we may have thought:  The work is too fascinating and our results too rewarding to worry about what labels we wear. 

 

The result of the upcoming membership vote is likely to set off another round in the discussion.  With our professional identities on the line, I fondly hope we will look back one day and conclude the debate in the end produced an outcome that was more than worth what we invested in it.

"There's such a thing?" Nurturing Information Imagination

In a few days, a licensed optician will arrive for the second time at my doorstep - this time with a finished pair of eyeglasses ready for the final adjustments.  The frames were examined last week at my dinner table from a selection she had assembled based on a phone conversation and my website photo; the final choice rested on her ability to use  examples of my business wardrobe to demonstrate the suitability of certain frame colors.  

 

In accomplishing the transaction effortlessly at home, and in getting frames I would have passed over had I been on my own in the store, I am the beneficiary of information a colleague offered me as I casually mentioned the wear and tear in my current glasses. "There is such a thing as an optician who makes house calls?"  was my surprised reaction.  Had I thought such a practitioner existed, I could easily have looked for her.  Not in my imagination, no search.

 

In the world of information and communication services, such a dynamic is common:  If it is not conjured up in thought, it cannot be requested.  Knowledge workers are not in a position to look, or ask information professionals to look on their behalf, for materials, tools, and services they are not even dreaming of.  Nor can knowledge workers be expected to imagine and hence inquire about the full sweep of implications arising from our innovative uses and combinations of existing or emerging web services.

 

Information and communication professionals - taking their own wizardry for granted - may be underestimating the there's-such-a-thing?  factor.  (On the other hand, it is a concern for some that we might overdo the "did you know" outreach; but upon reflection, I believe it is better to verify that our knowledge worker clients know of the opportunities we enable than to make the assumption they know.)

 

We cannot insert visions in the minds of knowledge workers.  We can work on building relationships to help them experience how airing concerns, ideas, and plans with us usually results in the discovery of some new advantage they had not imagined.

It's only words ... but "sleep on it" really is good advice!

David Silverman is my hero for posting wonderful pieces (blogs.harvardbusiness.org/silverman) on business writing.  In his April 14 post, he offers eye-opening advice on how many times a piece of communication needs to be revised according to its nature and purpose and the size of the audience.  I highly recommend that item - and while you're there, check the February 10, February 19, March 6, and May 1 posts.  Be sure to look at the reader commentary; it is entertaining and instructive.

 

The fast pace of work may make for limited opportunities to "smith" our prose as much as we might like - and soaring oratory may be unnecessary in many cases.  After all, with our adoption of email and then the instant or twitter message, we have increased our tolerance for formulations that might otherwise be considered a bit rough.  However, the common admonition "sleep on that email before you hit send" is a wise one; misunderstanding is difficult if not impossible to correct after the fact.

Here are two sets of questions I apply in creating or editing any non-casual text:

 

DOES THE MESSAGE "WORK"?

 

1. Having read the piece, are readers likely to know clearly what action is expected from them?

 

2. If the purpose is anything other than communicating low-risk information, is the tone appropriate and at the right level of intensity? 

 

3. Is the level of formality appropriate for the topic and for the relationship between the writer and the readers?

 

IS THE MESSAGE FREE OF ERROR OR DISTRACTING CLUTTER?

 

4. Are there mistakes with real impact - e.g. "not" where we mean "now"?

 

5. Could plainer words convey the meaning, and did fad expressions sneak in - e.g. "operationalize" where "carry out" would do?

 

6. Is informal usage cluttering up the reading experience - e.g. "there are many people who believe" or (ouch) "there's many people that believe" where "many believe" would be crisp?

 

7.  Is there ambiguity?  Sentences starting "This ..." are especially likely to require reformulation:  "A hacking incident uncovered a serious loss of data.  This caused great concern and much extra work."  (In my own writing I simply avoid beginning a new sentence with "this" - problem solved!)

 

Once such questions are addressed - we may each have a personal checklist of pitfalls to avoid - wait!  Look at the item later, with fresh eyes and a bit of distance.  I have been "saved" many a time just by planning ahead for inserting such a delay.  So indeed, in the absence of a different set of eyes ... do sleep on it. 

Who are We? In Whose Eyes? Career Identities or Brands

As I'm looking ahead to an upcoming SLA Toronto event focusing on determining the type of professional role and work that is most suited to our innate abilities and preferences, material dealing with professional niches and "brands" for information professionals naturally gets my attention.  Here are two samples:  Stephen Abram's "We are a Profession that Makes a Difference" in the January 2009 issue of Information Today and Tracey Caldwell's "Professional associations stand up for librarians" in the March 9, 2009 issue of Information World Review.  Stephen recounts the successes of colleagues who had a significant impact on their constituents by innovating and reaching way beyond their formal roles; Tracey has several professional association leaders comment on the evolving roles of and challenges for today's specialist librarians.

In those and similar articles, the underlying question is "who are we - and who do we want and need to be in future - to our direct clients and employers, to those who may be impacted indirectly by what we do, and to our peers?"  In preparation for another upcoming event, I took the liberty of asking a couple of colleagues for a reality check:  What is the "brand" that comes to mind when you think of my work as an information professional?  (Much to my relief, the answers corresponded to what I had hoped - or half expected, as in the case of the "whirling dervish" part.)

Before we communicate about our services to various stakeholder groups, we may want to establish what perceptions already exist about the function and role we have.  We are likely to find a wide range of impressions depending on the interaction we may have had with any respondent or on the experience he or she may have had with other information professionals - and it would be surprising if some of those impressions didn't differ from what we ourselves thought.  Brands are powerful carriers of connotation for products, services, and organizations - in building ours, we want to make sure it's the "right one".  Are we seen as steadfast partners in success, last-minute miracle workers pulling the impossible out of a hat - or something or everything in between?  Or are we respected but not really relevant?  Yes, the exercise may at first appear to have some tinge of the "how much on a scale from 1 to 10" I always recommend against - but that is handled by focusing on the role, not on ourselves as persons.

Crafting the work related brand we want to have vis a vis our various stakeholder groups is a challenge for many reasons familiar to information professionals.  One of them is the relatively short time frame we have at our disposal - the luxury of nurturing our brands over decades is not available the way it has been, say, for some iconic manufacturers.  For us, it's imperative to work effectively with our clients in ways they find directly beneficial in strategic ways (and yes, it's true we may never have the opportunity to share how much effort was involved in the enabling work we perform in order to deliver stunning results very quickly from time to time).

The catchy theme song in the TV series Crime Scene Investigation is named "Who are you?".  I "hear" it every time I think about how our professional roles are perceived.  We could all benefit from a bit of investigative digging now and then:  We know who we are ... but what brand do we really have - in the eyes of those we strive to serve?

Do We Know the Cost of Information Imprecision?

I have commented on 'true but incomplete' information in the past.  Here's an example that raises the aspect of cost:  What is the price to be paid when information is unclear and confusing and fails to orient people accurately?

 

 

Having more than three decades of airport navigation under my belt, I take weather delays and the resulting rerouting in stride.  "You need the Service Center, straight ahead" seemed actionable recently in a European airport … but straight ahead turned out to feature a Service Center sign pointing directly into a freight elevator.  To be on the safe side (as opposed to trusting I could just aim in the general direction), I decided to return to the milling gaggle where another employee helpfully added "near gate 35".  A quarter mile later (or so it felt with the carryon luggage I had wisely decided on, knowing the risk of a missed connection), I reached gate 35 and saw nothing but another 'Service Center' sign pointing back the way I had come.  Like a hawk, I circled ... and around two corners stumbled upon a series of counters looking quite service-center-ish.  The lines were packed and an employee told me "the wait isn't as long in the service center downstairs".  That sounded like an option to consider until another triager instructed "you MUST go downstairs for your transfer".  Once down a level, I yet again had to ask a couple of uniformed people in succession in order to find my way (same type of sign pointing to another freight elevator!). 

If the signage designers missed the opportunity to hang a few extra signs near gate 35 and downstairs, employees might have compensated by saying, for example, 'when you get to gate 35 turn right around the coffee stand and then right again into the shopping area and go just past the jewelry store'.  It's an untoward scenario when an airport serving millions of people from all over the world supports the cost of the type of information imprecision I experienced: Adding up the employee time needed to deal multiple times with confused travelers goes only part way.  What about the airlines having to rebook people who miss connections not because of weather but because they are unable to navigate in time?  What about the impact on the travelers themselves?

 

Could it be that information imprecision, vagueness, or ambiguity might cause the organizational equivalent of missed connections and wasted time repeatedly redirecting dazed information seekers?  Airports may not engage mystery travelers to examine the clarity of their signage and the instructions employees give, but I believe most enterprises could benefit from such an investigation:  Just where and how long is the path through the enterprise or intranet maze when someone needs to find something or someone?  How useful is the immediately available information? How often must an inquirer return to an informant for clarification? How much cumulative time is needed to arrive at the correct department, person, or data inventory for proper assistance?

 

 

I want to stress how much I appreciated the employees who helped me in that airport; they were extremely pleasant, courteous, and approachable.  But an extra sign here and there - or, say, a map to hand out showing the location of the service center relative to landmarks like gates and coffee stands - would reduce the need for them to deal with quite so many harried passengers.  Said another way: I'd venture that a one-time investment in information precision (signs, maps) could pay for itself in no time and then eliminate the year-in, year-out cost of making up for its absence.

"But I thought ... ": Communication styles matter

In the small European country from which I hail, residents of a particular region are known for their extreme conservatism in verbal expression - along the lines of "not shabby, we'll pass it" meaning "superb, truly excellent".  Because the style is well understood by fellow citizens in other parts of the country, it is primarily a source of amusement and jokes.  It is no joking matter, however, when differences in communication styles cause misunderstanding among business teams or between managers and their groups.  I have previously commented about information cultures; they are, of course, accompanied by communication cultures.

Here's a scenario:  A team has just worked weeks of massive overtime to pull off an "impossible" task.  If bonuses aren't in the cards, the exhausted team members look for at least a rousing accolade.  None arrives, and they come away feeling disappointed ... and likely uninclined to put in any such effort again. Over in the corner office, the manager meanwhile is still battling his or her challenges and, while appreciative of the team's delivery, is unaware of the extraordinary effort it took to deliver it.  Two style matters may be at play:  The person delivering the miracle did not go into colorful detail about how hard it was to do the work, and the manager may as yet be unpractised in the art of, and unfamiliar with the power of, praise and appreciation.

Here's another:  A new team member submits a report on time with considerable pride and waits anxiously for some feedback ... unaware that the recipient's style is to take it for granted that submitted reports will be of high quality. (Others know by now that it's great news if no requests for revisions are received.)  It could take some time before the new team member gets over the "what am I, chopped liver?" feeling.

And a third:  A manager brings to the new job a style of communication with the troops that worked well in the previous position but is puzzling to the team members - who don't know quite what to make of it but also don't find a way to bring it up for discussion and clarification.  The manager wonders why the teams don't react as expected and the teams get more perplexed as time goes on.

In such scenarios, we see good intentions but less than ideal outcomes as a result of differences in communication style or assumptions associated with communication.  Just as we work on managing information objects and knowledge, so too does the matter of communication style deserve the attention of information professionals.  It is always wise to pay attention to the ways in which people in an organization express themselves and to seek "local insight" how to interpret their messages.  Such attention is not a large stretch from the skills we apply in the reference interview.

Given the added potential for misinterpretation coming from email and blackberry brevity (a challenge addressed in a previous post) and the lack of time to read documents properly as opposed to frantically skimming them, it's no surprise many books focus on the matter of interpersonal and enterprise communication.  The well known John Gray and Deborah Tannen works come to mind; recently I stumbled on a classic by Tom Rusk entitled "The Power of Ethical Persuasion" whose case studies shed light on how every day brings opportunities for misunderstandig ... or understanding.

The takeaway for IKM professionals:  Let us not asume that our messages are heard and interpreted the way we intended.  Let us not react to messages without considering the background, circumstances, and communication culture.  Better to check "I'd like to make sure I fully understand ..." than to carry around a big question mark.  It's a good idea to make plain to close colleagues the style of how we communicate ("don't misunderstand, if I get agitated it only means I'm excited about an idea" or "if I fall silent, it only means I'm thinking, not that I am unreceptive") - just as we routinely check from time to time with clients and customers to get a sense how they understood or interpreted our latest messages.