The Montagues vs the Capulets: KM and Organizational Culture

November 29th, 2009

In the last two months at work and school (in a masters program in communication and technology), I’ve discussed the value of enterprise-level KM with classmates, colleagues and experts; reviewed recent research and opinion-makers on KM; and just plain thought about what KM offers that other disciplines don’t.

For those interested in the literature, KM follows what seems like a linear trajectory that mirrors, in many respects, shifts from mechanistic organizational structures to organic ones, from the industrial age to the information age and the knowledge age, and from positivism and postpositivism theories to constructivism and critical theory. These broad movements must surely paint a more detailed picture within organizations as employees leverage what they know on behalf of their employers, as we renegotiate the employer-employee relationship and as organizational culture is recognized as a key driver of organizational success.

The Evolution of KM

The first stage of KM focused on technology, data collection and information management, although its stated mission was to capture all knowledge.

The second stage quickly realized that such an approach was limited and it could not “manage” less tangible forms of knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi, for example, identified a KM cycle that accounted for how the intangible, hard-to-articulate knowledge in people’s brains – their tacit knowledge – could be shared with others and eventually made explicit. They felt that the only real way to enable this cycle was through socialization and conversation, i.e., knowledge was socially constructed. Critical theory also addressed issues of organizational structures and discourse that favored management perspectives, priorities and direction over a more desirable state of organizational democracy.

The third stage of KM, which is arguably still at play, focuses on the complex interplay of forces that occur in fast-paced, constantly changing environments, such as those created by globalization and intense competition. Knowledge, as described in this evolutionary stage, is fleeting, especially tacit knowledge, which is often outdated by the time it becomes explicit, if it becomes explicit at all. Influenced by complexity theory and organizational learning, 3^rd-gen KM examines the processes by which we engage in and can encourage adaptive learning.

Knowledge Management vs Knowledge Worker

But this evolution still seems to have left unresolved a critical tension at the heart of KM: Why should I, as an employee, share what I know (what’s in it for me) and why does the organization want to “manage” knowledge (what’s in it for them)?

As employees, and people, we are generally so jaded by stories of corporate greed that our understanding of corporate motives is largely negative. That understanding makes it difficult to believe that what we give organizations in exchange for a salary or career won’t somehow be used against us if we don’t carefully state the terms of the exchange (think of reasons for the rise of labor unions). The literature is full of discussion about employees’ inherent distrust of KM systems and management attempts to specify how people share what they know.

Why is that?

KM was founded on the belief that knowledge – important knowledge – could be separated from its knowers. KM may dismiss that characterization today, but its history continues to plague discussions about the purpose and direction of KM.

What knowers have figured out about that history is this: the first inspiration for the discipline of KM – the separation of knowledge from knowers – makes knowers much more dispensible. Employees know that; employers know that; it’s the elephant in the room. That recognition leads to a very clear, tacit, collective understanding that knowledge sharing is always a negotiation that has the potential to net each side certain benefits, and there may be winners and losers.

Add to that KM’s track record of expensive implementations with few results, and it is not difficult to conclude that employers have been unable to address employees’ fundamental concern: Why, in a relationship based on explicit reciprocity (labor for pay) should I give up my knowledge to the organization, with no articulation of the terms of the exchange, when doing so may reduce my position of relative advantage?

Joining forces

To me, the answer must lie in organizational culture – only there does an organization lay the groundwork for trust, for collective, collaborative enterprise that produces clear benefits for everyone, and not just the corporate engine.

You can put the tools in place. They might be databases or CMSs or social media tools. But organizational culture will ultimately determine whether anyone plays.

-Carolyn