“In a community of knowledge, what matters more than having knowledge is having access to knowledge”…”The different bits of knowledge that different members of the community have must be compatible” (Sloman, S, and P. Fernbach. 2017. The Knowledge Illusion, New York: Riverhead Books, pp.124, 126).
To know what I need to know, I can either input everything I need to know into my brain and remember it, or I can know that it exists and where to access it when needed. It turns out that our brains are leaky. We forget most things that we see, and we remember wrong many things we think we remember. And we are relatively good at finding out where to access knowledge, according to Professors Sloman and Fernabch, who I quoted above.
From the perspective of collaboration and co-hosting, the need to include others’ perspectives is the second step of the O Process for collaborative co-hosting. The first step is to identify the deeper shared purpose that brings everyone together, uniting their will towards a common future. The second step is to include those voices, those unique perspectives, that are required to generate the possibility of this deeper shared purpose. Most things that bring people together, like K-12 education, medical care, or food systems require many different perspectives to come together, in a specific way. The second step of the O Process invites in those different perspectives that we need. We need them because they are different, because they see the world differently, and they contribute a different perspective.
While this second step seems obvious to everyone I work with–the need for differently-minded people–most do not act as if it were obvious. Most who say they get this, then fill the room with like-minded people, not differently-minded people. I also observe that most people in most meetings are not clear why their specific perspective is needed in the room, nor are they clear on why the voices or perspectives of the other people in the room are needed. Not being clear on why I or others are in the room leads most people to not listen carefully, to not listen intently, and to not inquire into the differences someone else is seeing. Conversely, when we are clear that we need other specific perspectives, then we are intent on understanding what they are seeing, what they are uniquely bringing to what we are seeing together. Completely different processes, experiences, and outcomes.
When I combine this observation with the three levels of collaboration I have described before, I see three ways people relate to their own knowledge and accessing that of others.
- When the group process is designed for segregation, I am clear that “I need” something. I am paying attention to what I need to give and get from any given situation, at most looking to see what I can get from others, if they are aligned with giving me what I need.
- When the group process is designed for flocking, I know that “I need others.” I pay attention to what I need and what others need, as we move in the same space, sometimes working on our own and sometimes cooperating.
- When the group process is designed for uniting, I see that “I need specific others.” I am clear about what we are collectively trying to achieve together, our deeper shared purpose, and the need for very specific perspectives to achieve that deeper shared purpose. I pay attention to the deeper shared purpose, to each person’s perspective, and to how these perspectives shine light on what we want to achieve. I need each person to be different, united in a deeper shared purpose, and committed to collaborating with each other on that purpose.
I need you, because you are different, and because you are relevant, like I am, to what we want to give our will to, to the future we want to achieve.