Knowledge management is far too abstract.
Not only does it neglect the concrete, natural ways we use information and knowledge, it over-simplifies the infinitely subtle and sophisticated ways we play with information and knowledge in natural settings. So we make our crude distinctions between tacit and explicit knowledge, or between data, information and knowledge. And we treat everything as if it’s something that happens in the head, or between heads and heads (involving soundwaves) or heads and text in various forms. Specifically, I don’t see us anywhere talking about the importance of touch.
This is not unique to knowledge management – it’s true of management science in general. “Touch” is as crudely understood as knowledge is, notwithstanding the equally subtle and sophisticated ways that we use touch socially. In fact, it’s largely avoided; the role of a bureaucratic organization is to inhibit touch as far as it is possible to do so while still working with humans. We are, for example, much more comfortable thinking and talking about touching things (to control them), than we are about touching people. Touch screens, touch pads, excite our enthusiasm. Talking about touching our colleagues is deemed improper, inappropriate even. But we touch each other all the time, within the boundaries of our cultural, religious and instinctive rituals and rules around touch. There’s the playful tap when scolding someone half-seriously. The hand on the shoulder when sharing something, or on the arm to get someone’s attention in a crowd, or to convey assurance. The comforting hug when something terrible happens. The awkward embraces at farewells. The ritual handshakes at introductions and to signify agreement.
The renowned author Paolo Coelho keynoted recently at the Digital Life Design conference in Germany. Several bloggers have picked up on his revelation about how he increased the sales of his books by providing support for piracy of his editions. But nobody I’ve seen picked up on a more interesting story he told towards the end of his speech.Every year he holds a party for his friends. Being very active on social networking sites online, he decided to invite ten of his online “friends” who were his readers, so he issued an invitation to the first ten respondents via his MySpace page.His party was in the middle of nowhere in Spain, so he was shocked the next day to find that he’d had replies from Venezuela, Japan, UK and other far-flung places. He wrote a clarification to let them know he was only inviting them to his party, and wouldn’t be paying for their travel and accommodation. They all wrote back and said they understood that, but would still like to come. In fact, some asked whether they could bring their families. And they turned up.Coelho opened his keynote by saying “we only do business with people we like” and this is why any serious agreement needs eye contact – that interesting precursor and reinforcer of touch. He ended his party tale by talking in very concrete terms about the meaning of this event for him. “This human contact, regardless of whether you sell 100 million copies, where you don’t have eye contact, so it becomes an abstraction, this [human contact] is basic, and this is the blessing of the internet.”
Coelho does not talk directly about touch, but I am sure that he and his guests touched each other as part of that ritual of meeting and celebrating – this too is part of the “basic human contact” that establishes and maintains relationships of trust.So I’m convinced that touch – and regular touch – is an essential element in growing and expressing trust and assurance. In the multi-initiative field of KM, where we are messing with the way people have organized their work and their information and knowledge flows, with their relationships and sharing patterns, in this field trust and assurance – it seems to me – are critical.
So why don’t we talk about touch, when we talk about change management and KM communications? And why do organisations insist on believing they can completely remove face to face meetings – basic human contact – from their virtual teams and communities of practice once they have put collaboration infrastructure in place?
