“Knowledge workers in today's workforce are individuals who are valued for their ability to act and communicate with knowledge within a specific subject area.”[i]  Most of you reading this entry probably consider yourselves to be knowledge workers.  You probably also work with a bunch of other knowledge workers.  There is a good chance that the organization you work for employs quite a number of knowledge workers and does so in hopes of recognizing the value stated in the definition noted above (i.e., to take advantage of the knowledge they have in a specific subject area).  The definition also emphasizes the importance of the ability to take action. It should go without saying that to help knowledge workers be most effective, they should be enabled to connect and communicate with other knowledge workers to improve innovation, problem solving, etc.

I could go on to write about how many organizations still struggle with the temptation to create too much structure in their knowledge sharing efforts, thus actually preventing knowledge from being transferred.  I could also tell you about the organizations that still think that the people who are doing the mentoring/advising/teaching need to be at a certain level of the organization, and that those who are learning are the individuals that show up below them on the org chart.  I could get on my soapbox and mention a bunch of things that are not working. 

Instead, I want to personalize things.  If I assumed that I can only learn from those above me on the org chart, then I would be going to our CEO, Randy, for all of my learning.  While I certainly have learned quite a bit from him, I’ve learned a heck of a lot more from my other colleagues.  Let me give you some examples:

• Our Communications Principal, Laura, has taught me the right way to hold people accountable, especially when managing up.  She has a gift for being direct (which comes natural to me) without irritating people in the process of being direct (which is admittedly not as natural for me). 
• Our VP of IT, Mark, who also holds a law degree, has taught me quite a bit about contracts and “legalese” to the point that I can now negotiate most of our contracts without needing to pull him into the conversation.  This has not only made me more productive, but also allows Mark to focus more of his efforts on making our Open Mentoring product better. 
• One of our Directors of Client Services Consulting, Lisa, who happens to be a fellow ENTJ on the Myers-Briggs, has taught me how to maintain a good sense of humor in the face of dealing with difficult people (like those who work in procurement), which can be a challenge for ENTJs. 
• Our Graphic Design Principal, Chris, has taught me that it is almost always beneficial to look at something from a different perspective/point of view.  Even if you come back to your original idea, it is helpful to validate the power of that idea by looking at other options.  Chris doesn’t just think outside of the box, he lives there.
• One of our Senior Client Consultants, Angie, has taught me to appreciate people for who they are in addition to what they accomplish.  One of the things that makes Triple Creek great is the fact that our employees are not cut from the same mold.  Angie has taught me to appreciate the differences more than I naturally would be inclined to do. 

I am blessed in having had the opportunity to learn a whole lot more than what I just mentioned from my colleagues over the last seven and a half years.  One of the reasons that I have had the opportunity to learn from such a diverse set of colleagues is because I know everyone who works at Triple Creek.  As a small company, we have the benefit of knowing where our internal pockets of expertise reside in our workforce and my interactions are not limited to just those who work in the same functional area as me.  In larger organizations, it is impossible to know everyone, and also impossible to determine who knows what.  While the learnings I mentioned above were not necessarily derived from formalized mentoring relationships, they were only possible because of the full exposure that I am afforded to the diverse talents throughout Triple Creek. 

Makes sense (the whole full exposure thing), right?  Still, many organizations operate as though they are trying to insulate and isolate their knowledge workers by establishing structure, procedures, and rules to prevent them from connecting with one another.  While we have seen some breakthroughs in thinking over the last several years, we still encounter a number of clients and prospective clients who look to control who can connect with whom in knowledge-sharing relationships.  They establish tightly controlled programs with fairly strict participation criteria, and in the process they restrict the flow of knowledge.  These organizations wouldn’t state restricted knowledge flow as their goal or desire, but it is often the result.  In one breath, they talk about wanting to increase knowledge transfer, and in the next, they describe for you all the rules and structure that they are going to put in place to make it happen.  Which is it that they want: to establish rules and procedures or to allow knowledge to flow freely?  You can’t have both.