In a former post, I talked about the beginnings of a moral framework for collaborative behaviors. The question of what rights an individual inherits in such an environment was the next area to explore.
Contextualizing
Image Credit: Marvel Comics, Inc.
When we were building D.Wiki, we committed a lot of thought to what policies, guidelines, and procedures should govern the environment. At Deloitte, a heavily regulated business, we have a lot of policies around data disclosure, access permissions, and appropriate content. We talked about how those policies applied to the wiki and what gaps needed to be filled. Ultimately, we decided that there were no gaps in policy, just gaps in understanding how the policies applied to the space. We came up with a very simple concept to express all those policies; The Spiderman Principle. “With great power comes great responsibility.” This principle very succinctly captured the notion that this new environment was not immune from our rubric of governance, but at the same time made clear that the wiki was distinct from sending point-to-point messages in chat or through e-mail.
Rights Entail Responsibilities
This may sound strange, but the Principle reinforces a common understanding about the environment. It articulates the expectation that people should behave professionally while having fun and delivering enhanced client service. It also allows the end user to “opt in” or “opt out” of the conditions governing the space. The user is given the choice to accept the benefits and subscribe to the responsibilities being levied upon her/him. Acceptance of these responsibilities becomes a social contract between the individual and the collective corporation. In reality, by already being an employee they have already signed-up to our high standards of ethics and individual responsibility. So in the example of D.Wiki, when a user elects to become a member of the space, they accept the power and responsibility of contributing valuable, meaningful content.
Responsibilities to a Collaborative Space
A behavior I commonly observe in collaborative environments is the “vacuum effect.” This is the user practice of consuming information, but never contributing back into the space. They may also pump the system/people for information, but can’t be found when others are in need. Worse still, the person does not volunteer information that may be of value to others. These are examples of someone leveraging their right to access information, but not taking-on the responsibility to build on the knowledge base. My colleague Justin Franks wrote brilliantly about this topic sometime ago.
The Business and Ethical Implications
There is both a business and ethical impact if this behavior is allowed to continue. On the business side of the equation, the vacuum effect will literally suck the oxygen out of the environment. Trust evaporates. No one will wish to contribute to a space when they discover that their content is being shared and used, but that no one is willing to reciprocate. The stovepipes you sought to demolish will resurface. The cost efficiencies you sought to create will not materialize. And the capital invested into your collaborative environment will be lost when people stop contributing.
On the ethical side, the relationship between the sharer and the consumer is not balanced. It is still true that information is power. Continuing that power imbalance ensures that valuable pieces of knowledge are not shared and denies other participants an opportunity to grow. More to the point, the vacuum marginalizes those who have the best ideas. In an organization with a “vacuum effect”, the information extractors now get credit for the ideas of others. This is intellectually and professionally dishonest because the extractors did not do the cognitive work and will be rewarded for staking claim to it.
It’s just like it was in grade school: No one wants to be the kid that everyone cheats off of.
It All Comes Back to Responsibility
The extension of credit to originators is a fundamental ethical responsibility in a collaborative environment. Extending that credit can occur by tracking the digital exhaust of contributors and consumers, linking to content that is relevant to your idea/work, or by explicitly citing their work. Finally, pushing that such metadata forward in a transparent and easily accessible manner ensures that knowledge theft is pulled into check. Ultimately, regardless of the technical platform, there is always the risk that others will steal your work without you knowing it. In a transparent environment it is aggravating to know people are actively acting against your personal interests. If you find yourself victimized by a knowledge thief, remember to take the high road. Changing a culture of information hording occurs one user at a time. If you believe in the value of collaboration, don’t compromise your own sense of ethics in favor of short-term rewards.
[...] Ethical Collaboration: The Vacuum Effect « The Green Dotted Line briandrake.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/ethical-collaboration-the-vacuum-effect – view page – cached In a former post, I talked about the beginnings of a moral framework for collaborative behaviors. The question of what rights an individual inherits in such an environment was the next area to… (Read more)In a former post, I talked about the beginnings of a moral framework for collaborative behaviors. The question of what rights an individual inherits in such an environment was the next area to explore. (Read less) — From the page [...]
I enjoyed your post, and I am in agreement with most of what you have shared. It does beg a question or two.
Since you have made it clear that this vacuum has real negative effects, how do we avoid this kind of environment?
Policy will get you part of the way, but then you have to have a way of recognizing knowledge theft, and then doing something about it. Who is going to do the policing? Is there a way of anonymously reporting those suggested breaches and too whom? Is there a business argument for having such a group or is it spread across the business or network?
As long as your knowledge management environment is separate from your production environment these negative practices could be an ongoing issue simply because they are physically separate places and finding information on who may have said what and when would be more difficult. Should we have a responsibility and business practice to include searching for related work on the part of the writer, or is it to allow others to collectively police and anonymously report or give credit to the individual that had originally written on the subject?
The idea that any of us could know what anyone else is / or has written on would be a difficult task. Where then is the line between time consumed in due diligence and time in creation of content?
I guess in short, I fully agree with your sentiment on giving credit to others at every occasion that a writer has is important and in line with “collaborative culture”. Where for this discussion collaborative culture embodies the moral, ethical, sharing, acknowledgment, and somewhat open and selfless mindset. That there should be a reasonable expectation to do some kind of search for work already conducted on the subject on the part of the writer. That there should be the ability to have others provide feedback and link to related or original work on the subject as well.
I hope we get there, and that the collaborative culture spreads.