1. Don’t do anything today if it can be done tomorrow

  2. Don’t do it, if someone else can do it better…claim that you can do better things especially when those better things are not needed

  3. Don’t do simple tasks, while it is cheap and efficient… Start trying only after it gets dynamic, complicated, costly and inefficient

  4. Don’t try doing anything alone…and coordinate with at least two busy others, around when/where/how to do, till everyone gives up trying, even to coordinate

  5. Start with principle 1 on the new task, and claim expertise in multi-tasking


Addendum: there was a sixth principle in contention that all above 5 principles work only with tasks that have a compelling reason/objective/vision for gen-z. from my experience reasons are immaterial ab initio.


5 gen-Z task management principles


Innovation Job Role Archetypes

For starters “blonde” is a stereotype, while “Dilbert” is an archetype. Innovators generally do not come in stereotypes, nor do they come with tags. There are more than 4 archetypes below, I am sure. I am listing the 4 I have personally seen in my experience with Innovation Management, and running around with others ideas door to door within organizations.

Sticker – thinks everything is a method, and for every method there is a place, mode, and content, he also thinks that scale and variety can be built over a period

Bulldozer – is convinced that movement within business/customers/departments is all that counts, and all of the movement can be accounted in a process on a platform

Diffetish – is one thinks he makes a difference by running campaign and branding on all things possible, has a fetish for all content but not context

Show Teller – believes what he sees (even complicated stuff) and can only work with forms that are concrete and typically teams that have other geeks

Someday I will get around to drawing a face/caricature to these archetypes with more of their traits and add them here. Where is my drawright kit?


KM and Job Titles

The problem with KM is it is too intangible to define and fit in an org structure.
For example you can say
1. KM’s job is to make people smarter
2. KM’s job is to enable more meaningful conversations across a company
3. KM’s job is to generate good connections from which good conversations/knowledge flow

Each of these can never be put into a job description nor can competency frameworks be designed for above. What in turn happens is we start to fit in with generic descriptions for K Managers, Consultants, Facilitators, Directors etc.

Question is even if you do away with the central structure the few thinkers left in the system would enable all above and more without ever knowing or calling it KM.
If you as a KM Practitioner disagree with the responsibility tell me why it cannot be KM responsibility and what other thing would be a responsibility under KM.

Thanks to enlightened tradition for sparking the thought