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 Knowledge, as described in this evolutionary stage, is fleeting, especially tacit knowledge, which is often outdated by the time it becomes explicit, if it becomes explicit at all.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, 3rd-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
November 22nd, 2009
Reality check
In previous posts we’ve discussed the significance of KM to organizations and listed the barriers that affect employees’ participation in KM initiatives. An additional barrier may emerge when employees ask what organizations actually do with their employees’ knowledge. The assumption is the org will use it to its own ends.
But when the organization is a multinational with profits in the billions, is it within employees’ purview to question whether their knowledge should be used simply to create shareholder profit or to serve some greater end, such as corporate and social responsibility programs that ensure the org gives back a significant share of its profits to those in need. Can employees use what they know as leverage for organizations to behave more responsibly?
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Threatening a professor with a lawsuit if he tries to translate the results of a report about a dam threatening to displace several tribes and flooding thousands of hectares in the Mapuche land in Chile, or suppressing the findings of this report from investors and stakeholders are activities authorized by the World Bank. To hide its blunders and obtain more loans, the World Bank has been censoring knowledge coming from within the organization as well as from independent sources.
How can you stop the censorship or face a multibillion-dollar organization? I have pondered this question and think the better way to ask it is CAN you stop an organization such as the World Bank from steering its knowledge in the way the administration sees fit?
A light at the end of the tunnel
Some may argue that organizations in a position to censor knowledge that may have profound public impacts should be monitored by public agencies. Yet, who sets the rules for a “proper” and independent supervision? An independent committee, maybe. Having a committee that monitors the World Bank’s activities and produces independent reports for stakeholders can help. However, it is a tricky decision to make especially if this committee was in a position to be manipulated by investors or pressured by other interests.
For more information, please visit these websites:
http://www.mapuche-nation.org/english/html/news/pr-39.htm
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-4385
~asia
November 8th, 2009
With its 10,000 employees scattered all over the world, the World Bank faces a challenge — building a knowledge management program that works. Realizing that this system is vital in helping its clients fight poverty, the World Bank invested around 53 million dollars in its knowledge management initiative by upgrading its technological capabilities and launching its employee training program. Yet the process is not easy and the obstacles are numerous. One issue is developing soft and hard knowledge. Can they harmoniously co-exist after the rebirth process takes place?
What academics say
Jasimuddin (2008) conducted a study that covered several British companies and included 100,000 employees. The goal of the study was to determine which is better for organizations — soft knowledge or hard knowledge? Though some employees believed that staff expertise is indispensible for any knowledge sharing process, others argued that without technological infrastructure, knowledge management is unachievable. However, all employees agreed that soft and hard knowledge should be used according to the situation.
On the other hand examining the various factors that impact knowledge sharing through soft or hard systems can help the organization choose which one to capitalize on to reach its goals for a particular period. For instance, the human factor–with all its internal complexities, such as fear of humiliation, ambition, and greed, or the external complexities, such as culture and traditions–can dramatically affect one’s decision to participate in the knowledge sharing process through either system. Conversely, technology can facilitate knowledge transfer, but it can not monitor the quality of this knowledge or its credibility, according to Edwards, Shaw, and Collier (2005). Trying to “push” any technological tool that stores predetermined knowledge to employees can lead to failure of the whole process, according to Malhotra (2005).
The World Bank experience
Because it’s a multicultural organization, the World Bank had no option but to create a knowledge management system that promotes the use of both processes — the soft and the hard.
What the World Bank did (check out baselinemag.com for more information on how the World Bank developed its knowledge management system):
–Create an infrastructure that allows people in developing countries to make a videoconference with World Bank employees
–Translate documents and reports into different languages and make them available for its clients
–Train employees to use the newly installed technological tools
–Meet with employees to promote the knowledge management initiative
–Enhance its internet potential
Results
Suffice it to say that a doctor in Zaire can access the World Bank website or its affiliates, such as CDC, to take a look at the treatments available for Malaria or HIV and take the necessary measures to protect human life.
-Asia
Loading ...