What can we do to make our networks more inclusive and generative? This presentation by Kate Pugh, Nancy Dixon and April Allen illustrates learnings from the SIKM Gender and Diversity study and new blueprint, and other networks.

1. Cognitive and Gender Diversity in
Communities
Aprill Allen, Knowledge Bird (aprill@knowledgebird.com)
Nancy Dixon, Common Knowledge (nancydixon@commonknowledge.org)
Katrina Pugh, Columbia University/AlignConsulting (kp2462@columbia.edu)
KM World, November 19, 2020

2. Key messages
• CoPs are an indispensable contribution to any organization’s
KM program. They can also cause hurt feelings and distress.
• It is important for CoP leaders to be aware of the differences
and biases that diverse participants bring to CoP discussions.
• SIKM Leaders, CompanyCommand, Intel Enterprise
Architects, and The Australian Centre for Social Innovation
are communities seeking to work with diversity.
• Refining what moderators choose to measure is one way to
to address ongoing biases.

3. Cognitive diversity
Cognitive diversity is differences in heuristics, perspectives,
interpretations and mental models. Though it can be correlated with
identity diversity (because of our upbringing), it is not always.
Sometimes cognitive diversity is called “ways of knowing.”
Do you remember or organize info with:
• A list?
• A process?
• An “if-then” statement?
• A feedback loop?
• An org chart or social network map?
Engineers have a different problem solving strategy than do physicians,
musicians or attorneys.They approach problems in a different way.

4. Background

5. Community members achieve
outcomes and build relationships by:
● Interacting on an ongoing basis
● Asking and answering questions
● Sharing their knowledge
● Reusing good ideas
● Solving problems for one another
● Co-developing new and better
ways of doing things
Communities are one of the best tools KM has
But, communities can be places where
people experience...
● Domination by people of higher
status
● Misunderstandings
● Hurt feelings
● Bias
● People being shut down

6. Bias is Real in Communities
Being critical associated with
being smart (“Jerk Factor”)
Availability bias
Confirmation bias
Fundamental attribution error
In-group preference bias

7. SIKM Leaders: One example of seeking to
understand gender and diversity in a
community

8. Timeline
Online Dialogue (Nov ‘19)
3 Focus groups (Jan ‘20)
Check in with the SIKM Community leader on the draft findings (Feb ‘20)
Survey of the whole community, authoring of the Blueprint (April ‘20)
Revised Blueprint shared with the community (May ‘20)
Kick off Champions role (June ‘20-present)
Expand use of Groups.io, including hashtags, folders, doc links (Aug ’20)
We noticed lack of diversity in SIKM Leaders
What we did:

9. 13 women responded, then 8 men provided further
reflections.
Questions to the women:
1. What factors influence whether or not you
post or reply in this community?
2. Do you think there are any fundamental
differences in the way men and women
choose to post and reply?
3. Do you consider the imbalance of posts by
gender to be a problem? If so, why? If not,
why not?
4. What, if anything, can be done to increase
the percentage of posts made by women?
5. What articles, books, posts, and research
do you think are relevant to this
discussion?
Questions to the men:
1. What did you learn from the posts made
so far?
2. How will this discussion affect your future
posts and replies?
3. What other observations, suggestions, and
related articles and books can you share?

10. What Members Said: Statistics on “difference”
General Data
• Women tend to post less
• Women tend to ask more questions, once in a thread
• Women tend to wait to build relationships first
• Gender differences may make it difficult to post: Full time jobs with
child care responsibilities.
Demographics of SIKM
• Just under 900 members, 15 years old
• SIKM has about 50-50 male:female membership
• 80-20 participation, men to women
Diversity Big Picture
• Many people suggested that a core issue is cognitive diversity, not
just male/female, e.g., tenure, vendor or consultant.

11. What we found: Why women said they (don’t) post
Women stay back when they find the content not relevant or excessive
• Many smart people in the group, all good-intended, provide quick answers.
• Some appear to post to build a reputation.
Several women said that they didn’t post because they
• Felt mansplained
• Competed with / raced to post
• Felt shut down
• Felt “imposter syndrome”

12. What we found: Stylistic differences in the way
men and women post
Stylistic differences
1. Abstraction (2 people)
2. Psychological safety (4 people)
3. Certainty (2 people)
4. Respect (2 people)
“People who have visible
or invisible power or
authority, verbal
quickness, etc. dominate
verbal interactions,
often with no self
awareness.”

13. What we found: Stylistic differences in the way
men and women post
Stylistic differences
5. Dialogue (balance of inquiry v.
Advocacy) (3 people)
6. Length (2 people)
7. Reputation (2 people)
8. Speed (5 comments)
9. Disregarding agreed upon rules
(2 people)
“ They include questions
and invitation to others,
rather than just stating
their views, others wade
in. If they wait sometimes
and not rush to fill the
void, new voices can more
easily come in.”

14. What we found: Information consumption
preferences
● Live, small group discussions
● Short, social media-length
posts (more likely to
encourage dialogue)
“I find the email modality quite onerous
for conversational discussions. The
question is less around gender than
around the question: are we simply
sending back an email package of
expertise, or are engaging in a dialogue?
"Packages of expertise" only interest me
so far, but when I see an expanding
conversation, I understand I may easily
get more diverse perspectives, see more
ways to make relevant contributions,
etc.”

15. From Focus Groups to a Blueprint
● Engaging each other
on the platform
● Profiles
● Shared community
management
● Live sessions & peer
assists
● Discussion
disciplines & norms

16. Four Discussion Disciplines (4DDs)
Inclusion
Translation
Integrity
Courtesy

17. Why 4DDs: Quick 4DD analysis of sample thread
● Women and men equally
likely to use integrity
(25%) (well-defended
statements, clean
questions)
● Inclusion was
approximately every
10th move
However,
● Over 30% of all moves
were “anti”
● Women used courtesy
approx 30% of their
moves, men 16%
● Men used “anti-
courtesy” approx. 25% of
the time

18. Translation - Actively connect the
dots, driving toward action
Inclusion - Advocate for language and
practice that includes others.
Translation - Synthesize, integrate the truth,
even if it’s difficult to do so.
Courtesy - Yield to others; don’t be selfish
Inclusion - Reach out/in for difference
Integrity– Have humility
Inclusion - Reach-out/in for
learning
Integrity– Have agency. Ask tough
questions.
Becoming
welcome
with the
Blueprint
Andrew M. Ibrahim MD, MSc is an Assistant Professor of Surgery, Architecture & Urban Planning at the University of Michigan and Chief Medical Officer at HOK, a
global design and architecture firm. This free graphic is available (with attribution) here: https://umich.app.box.com/s/d1zl3r2dlso7gs76wjfybv9z52m397ho
Welcoming
Diversity

19. Actions in progress
● 6 month pilot of
Community
Champions
rotation
● New member
journey
● Member directory
● Introducing topical
live video sessions

20. Examples of other communities on journeys

21. CompanyCommand
• Community of 2000 U.S.
Army Company
Commanders that helped
each other face the
challenges of both
preparing for war and
fighting a war in the field.
•
• Lead by a team of 5
Company Commanders

23. For each contribution moderators:
● Thank the contributor for their contribution
● Affirm the contributor’s belonging to the community: “You’re an
important part of our community. Your recent contribution will
really help peers….”
● Improve the contribution - spelling mistakes, grammer, links to
other documents, suggestions for how to rephrase critical
comments “I think what you were trying to say was….”

25. Intel Solution Services Enterprise Architects
Community
Goal — Unite Enterprise architects across three divisions.
Profile — Senior architects in server, IT, solutions divisions, scattered across
the US, Europe & China
Structure — Core team (4), working groups, monthly live meeting
Norms — “Working out loud,” “Dial for dollars” (reach across)
Accomplishments — Evaluated and made decision to standardize on one
enterprise architecture standard, lobbied successfully for enterprise-level
funding. Established monthly presentation schedule, which was attended by
50-70% of members.
Results — Received prestigious CIO award, cohesion across BUs with different
“status.”

26. The Australian Centre for Social Innovation works with governments,
businesses and communities to build the conditions for social innovation.
1. Start with where people are at
2. Prioritise action and experimentation
3. Enable learning from people and systems
4. Build peer support
5. Amplify, bridge and stop
6. Design for exit and scale

27. Challenge: Your measurement plan?

28. Typical CoP Measures
● Number of Network Members
● Number of Active Members
● Number of Questions asked per month
● Number of Answers per questions
● Average time to first answer
● Quantitative cases (just starting to see - e.g., sharing
improving the next sale)

29. Why measure?
● So that we know we are doing something valuable
● So that we know if anything is missing or not working,
so we can fix it
● So that we know who is doing a great job, and needs
thanks
● So that we know if there are some people for whom
the network is not welcoming, so we can fix it

30. What do you measure?
● It is easy to measure things like number of post; speed
of responding, etc.
● Do you measure how it is:
○ valuable
○ inclusive
○ welcoming
○ appreciative?

31. Activity

32. What will YOU measure to
determine if your community is:
Valuable,
Inclusive,
Welcoming, and
Appreciative?

33. Appendix
References, Bios, Contact Info

34. Blueprint details

35. Some References
• Curtis, Dr C et al (2018). “Examples and emerging insights from TACSI’s big change work.”
https://www.tacsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TACSI_big_change.pdf
• Delizonna, Laura (2017). “High Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s How to Create it.”
https://hbr.org/2017/08/high-performing-teams-need-psychological-safety-heres-how-to-create-it
• Dixon, Nancy, Polarization: The Power of Dialogue and the Problem of Implicit Bias
https://www.nancydixonblog.com/2020/10/polarization-the-power-of-dialogue-and-the-problem-of-implicit-bias-.html
• Dixon, Nancy, How A Few Simple Ground Rules Can Help Polarized Groups Hold Civil Conversations With Each Other
https://www.nancydixonblog.com/2020/09/how-a-few-simple-ground-rules-can-help-polarized-groups-hold-civil-conversations-with-each-other.ht
ml
• Edmondson, Amy, Team Learning and Psychological Safety Survey. https://www.midss.org/content/team-learning-and-psychological-safety-survey
• Isaacs, William (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Doubleday.
• Minnesota State (2018), 12 Cognitive Biases That Can Impact Search Committee Decisions (infographic).
https://www.minnstate.edu/SYSTEM/hr/talent_management/documents/12%20Cognitive%20Biases%20Infographic%20v%204.pdf
• Neuroleadership Institute 2020 Forbes articles on leading diversity:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrock/2020/06/03/leadership-in-this-moment-listen-deeply-unite-widely-act-boldly/#15102be322cd and
https://www.forbes.com/sites/khalilsmith/2020/01/09/should-i-be-focusing-on-di-or-id/#9010e2eca47d
• Pugh, Katrina (2020). “In the Digital Fray, Don’t Just Converse. Collaborate!” (LinkedIn Article)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-fray-dont-just-converse-collaborate-katrina-kate-pugh (This is a comprehensive summary of the 4
Discussion Disciplines)
• Pugh, Katrina (2016). “Four Disciplines Drive Effective Online Collaboration.” Columbia School of Professional Studies News, February 1, 2016.
https://sps.columbia.edu/news/four-discussion-disciplines-drive-effective-online-collaboration
• Pugh and Prusak (2013), “Designing Effective Knowledge Networks “ MIT Sloan Management Review.
• Settle Murphy, Nancy, Guided Insights, and Katrina Pugh, Columbia University, “How Inclusion and integrity foster more productive conversations
and reduce bias in a virtual world.”
• https://www.guidedinsights.com/how-inclusion-and-integrity-foster-more-productive-conversations-reduce-bias-in-a-virtual-world/ (10/19/20)
• Settle Murphy, Guided Insights, and Katrina Pugh, Columbia University, "Healthy Conversations Can Bring Virtual Teams Back to Life."
• https://www.guidedinsights.com/healthy-conversations-can-bring-%EF%BB%BFvirtual-teams-back-to-life/ 8/19/20

36. Aprill Allen
Aprill Allen is a knowledge management specialist and
managing director of boutique consulting firm,
Knowledge Bird. Knowledge Bird conducts Knowledge
Centered Service training and coaching; and helps startups
and enterprise service desks provide better customer
experiences at scale.
She is also passionate about improving the career landscape
for knowledge managers by understanding the nature of the
work in her 2019 KM Careers Survey (A/NZ), and providing a
niche KM Jobs board.
As a founding member of the Australian Community
Managers organisation, she hopes to strengthen the
relationship between knowledge management and the
growing online community management specialisation.

37. Nancy Dixon
Nancy Dixon is a thought leader in the field of Knowledge Management.
She has been a consultant to the most celebrated knowledge management
companies with a rich experience in the corporate, government and
international development sectors. Before founding Common Knowledge
Associates in 2000, she was a Professor at the George Washington University for
15 years, and before that at the University of Texas, in Austin. She holds a Ph.D.
in Administration with a minor in Sociology. She currently is on the faculty of
IKNS at Columbia University, teaching Dialogue and Researching Advanced
Knowledge Concepts.
Her latest articles include:
• Learning Together and Working Apart, The Learning Organization, The
Learning Organization Vol. 24 Issue: 3, pp.138-149, 2017.
• The Three Eras of Knowledge Management, in KM Matters, (ed) Girard,
2017.
• Glimpses of Organizations in the Act of Learning, Oxford Handbook of the
Learning Organization, pp. 273-288, 2020.

38. Katrina Pugh, M.S./M.B.A.
Katrina Pugh is Adjunct Faculty and the former Academic
Director of Columbia University’s Information and Knowledge
Strategy (IKNS) Master of Science program. She specializes in
business strategy, collaboration, social network analysis, and
knowledge-driven transformation.
President of AlignConsulting, Kate has over twenty years of consulting
and industry experience in the financial services, health sciences,
energy, information technology, and international development
sectors.
Kate is general editor and co-author of Smarter Innovation: How
Interactive Processes Drive Better Business Results (Ark Group, 2014),
author of Sharing Hidden Know-How: How Managers Solve Thorny
Problems with the Knowledge Jam (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, April 2011), and
has published in the Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management
Review, and Review of Economics and Statistics.