Affective
Factors for Successful Knowledge Management
Peter
A.C. Smith
The
Leadership Alliance Inc.
Accepted for publication: International Journal of Sociotechnology & Knowledge Development, Vol.
2, No. 1, 2010
Abstract
The paper proposes that any effort to successfully manage
knowledge must be concerned not only with relevant technology, but also with
the plethora of affective factors present in the workforce. The aim of this
paper is to heighten awareness of the impact of these affective factors on KM
implementation, and to offer practical approaches that it is contended will
assist in “getting the affective factors right”.
Introduction
For more than a decade
Knowledge Management (KM) has been vigorously proposed as a means to optimize
enterprise performance and sustainable competitive advantage in the face of the
rapidly increasing complexity and ambiguity of our modern global business
environments (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Choo &
Bontis, 2002; Marqués et al, 2006; Karaszewski, 2008).
During the early '90s
KM essentially referred only to information systems (I/S)
technologies related to informational databases, artificial intelligence, and Internet/intranet
applications where information is shared across I/S networks. An understanding
emerged during this period that to derive actionable meaning from information
it was essential that the explicit and tacit dimensions of organizational knowledge
be developed in a complimentary and dynamically reciprocal manner (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995).
By the late-90s there
was emphasis on treating KM in a more systemic organizational sense to include
the social as well as the I/S technological aspects of any attempt to manage
organizational knowledge. The work of Davenport and Prusak (1998) led the way
in emphasizing that any effort to manage knowledge must be concerned not only
with the I/S technology, but also the associated social issues., and
Wiig (2000; p. 14) cited a number of authors to support his contention that “Overall
KM will become more people-centric because it is the networking of competent
and collaborating people that makes successful organizations”. Since that
time a broad-based acceptance of the inclusive nature of KM has developed,
together with a more practical appreciation of the perils of KM (Chua &
Lam, 2005; Dufour & Steane, 2007).
In
parallel there has been increasing acknowledgement
of the impact of organizational culture on the success or failure of KM
initiatives (Guzman & Wilson, 2005; Pyöriä, 2007)
including the constructive or detrimental influences of the more personal
affective, sometimes unconscious, factors such as beliefs, emotions, attitudes,
and instincts (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002; Scherer & Tran, 2003; Smith & McLaughlin, 2003; Malhotra, 2004;
Lucas, 2005; Figler & Hanlon, 2008).
The aim of this paper
is to heighten awareness of the impact of affective factors on KM implementation,
and to offer practical approaches that it is contended will assist in “getting
the affective factors right”. First a tried-and-true model for optimizing KM
performance is reviewed that has been utilised successfully with a broad range
of organizations for almost two decades (Smith & Sharma, 2002a; p. 767).
Next this model is used to frame descriptions of initiatives that shape various
affective factors for successful KM implementation. In exploring and defining
the drivers for successfully implementing KM, the concept of a Personal
Knowledge Management System (PKMS) is described.
Background
Most
managers will agree that their organization's capability to act is heavily
dependent on its knowledge assets and how they are managed. In this regard,
information technology (I/T) may be used to create, capture, organize, access
and use the intellectual assets of the organization; however as
As
understanding of KM has become more sophisticated, the traditional notion of
knowledge as the assets of strictly defined “professional” groups has become
untenable when compared to an organization's wide-ranging knowledge
requirements (Heiskanen, 2004), and the awareness that knowledge-bytes must be
shared and distributed has gained ground in the past decade (Nosek, 2004; Kafai
& Resnick, 1996; Resnick et al,
1993).
At
the same time there has been a growing interest in the dynamic aspects of
knowledge husbandry. Nonaka and Konno (1998) model the acquisition and
construction of knowledge as a cyclic process based on socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization. Socialization includes the
essential social interaction needed to learn new knowledge; externalization
converts tacit knowledge to explicit; combination facilitates transfer of
explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge; and internalization converts the
explicit knowledge back to tacit knowledge.
Nosek
(2004) considers this acquisition and construction of knowledge as a collective
process of sense-making, rather than an individual process. This author asserts
that we must abandon the concept of knowledge sharing as transmitting data in
favor of the notion of “… effecting the right ‘cognition’, in the right agents,
at the right time” (Nosek, 2004, p. 54). Sense-making here is interpreted as
“the process whereby people interpret their world to produce the sense that
shared meanings exist” (Leiter in Gephart,
1993, p. 1469-70), and the collective process involves people
actively engaging in interpreting the social world through textual accounts and
ongoing dialog that describes and make sense of the social world (Gephart,
1993; Weick, 1979).
The
emerging emphasis on the importance of socialization for effective knowledge
management and on the socio-technical concerns related to I/T knowledge systems
has focused attention on the prevailing organizational culture. Culture here is
defined as the shared values, beliefs and practices of the people in the
organization (Schein, 1992), and includes the critical impact of non-rational
affective factors”. Many organizations operate under a facade of rationality
(Smith & Sharma, 2002b) so that affective factors typically remain
un-acknowledged or un-discussable, and less than optimum KM performance is
often attributed to other (often blameless) organizational undertakings (Smith
& McLaughlin, 2003). In order to capture the anticipated benefits of KM, an
organization must strike an appropriate balance between rationality/technical
efficiency and non-rational factors during implementation. In the next section some practical approaches are offered that will
assist in “getting the peopleaffective
factors right”.
Getting the People Factors Right
A systemic model based
in Chaos theory (Fitzgerald, 2002) is recommended to frame descriptions of
initiatives that shape various affective factors for successful KM performance.
The model consists of three ‘fields’ termed Focus, Will and Capability. The
generic model is presented in Figure 1, and represents here a performance
system directed to satisfying the KM outcomes desired.
Figure 1: KM
Performance System
The three fields form a
dynamic system. Focus represents a clear definition and understanding of the KM
system proposed; Focus is associated with questions such as What ..?; How ..?;
Who ..?; Where ..?; When ..?; Why ..? The field of Will represents strength of
intent to action the performance defined in Focus; Will is very strongly
associated with the affective factors noted above. Capability represents the
wherewithal to transform into reality the KM system defined in Focus;
Capability is associated with such diverse areas as skills, software/hardware,
budgets etc. A change in any one of these fields may effect a change in the
state of one or both of the other fields.
Optimal KM performance
is favoured when Focus, Will and Capability form a self-reinforcing system,
with all fields in balance and harmony. As Figure 1 shows, current performance
potential is represented by the degree of overlap of the circles; optimal
performance is represented by complete congruence of all three circles. Areas
where only two fields overlap in Figure 1 are typical of real-life situations.
These imbalances lead to misdirected and wasted efforts as well as loss of
performance. For example, organizations often concentrate on developing a
technology-based KM system (strong Capability) without regard for the fact that
their employees don’t understand why KM is needed (weak Focus), and without
sensitivity to an individual’s feelings that their knowhow - their source of
power - is being removed (absent Will).
Reasons preventing
organizations from achieving well-targeted Focus, Will, and Capability are
complex and illogical, as one would expect where tacit feeling-laden concerns
are involved. For example, organizations typically operate with a façade of
rationality although Will involves irrational issues. Will is often perceived
as negative, linked to inappropriate expressive arenas of life rather than to
the goal-orientation that drives organizations. Emotional maturity is equated
with the control or repression of feelings, and the word “emotional” is used in
a belittling sense as a deviation from intelligence (Putnam & Mumby, 1993,
p. 36). In 1973 Egan wrote “Emotional repression in organizations is
undoubtedly still a far greater problem than emotional overindulgence” (p. 61).
Thirty-sixfive years
later this statement is as true as ever.
The three fields also
constitute a strange attractor that according to Chaos theory assists
individuals make meaning to produce order from chaos and help structure what is
happening at the individual’s level. The emergent KM system is formed as a
result of all the interacting/inter-dependent activities that take place as
individuals interpret the strange attractor’s fields and take action – in other
words, KM will be pulled naturally into being rather than being pushed.
In the following
subsections initiatives are outlined that an organization may undertake to
influence the three fields so that supportive affective factors may develop.
Each field is treated individually; however, how activities initiated to shape
one field influence one or more other fields is noted.
Focus
must pull people toward a visionary core through their involvement, and the
most critical element of Focus is the organization’s KM “vision”. Vision makes
its strongest contribution to Focus when it results from a sharing of the
individual yearnings of all employees, and the organizational vision must be
aligned to the people, rather than the people to the vision (Mahesh, 1993; p.
230-231; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; p.129-133). Encouraging individual managers
to explore with their teams development of a shared local KM vision (consistent
with that of their organization) for their particular function is often
sufficient. Note that when employees
themselves clarify the KM Focus, the process helps them develop the appropriate
Will.
Capability includes the physiological needs of individual employees, and it is
important to satisfy these needs since they directly correlate with the quality
of individual performance (Fortune, 1997). According to Maslow (1943) human
beings have an innate requirement to satisfy a hierarchy of needs, including
self-actualization (Mahesh, 1993; p. 35). Self-actualisation is critical to the
development of the cultural traits that successful KM implementation demands;
however, it is very important that needs at lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy
be satisfied before attempting to introduce Will-related activities aimed at
self-actualisation.
Will
may best be shaped by pulling it into being via the initiatives discussed above
for Focus and Capability; however, activities may be undertaken that shape Will
more directly. For example by addressing how people in an organization meet to
discuss a KM initiative. Often at meetings the last thing people want is to
reveal their real underlying concerns. On the surface, all may appear well, and
discussion proceeds in a calm and dignified manner; however, under the surface,
a more turbulent encounter is taking place that will profoundly affect any
subsequent actions.
One way to picture a
meeting is to imagine people as icebergs floating together in the sea. When
icebergs meet, the submerged parts of the icebergs (people’s unawareness),
which is much greater than the visible tips of the icebergs (people’s
awareness), meet first. Gaunt (1991) provides details of the group conscious
and unconscious awareness at various levels of an ‘iceberg’, and points out
that the content is often defeated by the unarticulated process, which is
largely about building trust. For example, the iceberg tip might be articulated
as “How do I develop a KM system for my organization?” whereas the underlying
problem that will need resolution might more realistically be defined as “How
do I and the people in my team deal with feelings related to power loss and
vulnerability etc?” Such KM icebergs cannot be fused into a cohesive whole by
examining and responding only to their tips.
Concerns such as these
may be explored through group dynamics (most notably psychoanalysis, field and
systems theories, and Gestalt). Egan (2002) has proposed a system of
counselling skills whereby emotions can be explored and resolved or managed. In
the next section, group interventions (PKMS Workshops) that are used to build
on Egan’s work are described. These interventions help in the development of
insight into unconscious difficulties and highlight blocks to effective working
- without such interventions, no meaningful KM progress is likely.
Personal Knowledge Management System (PKMS) Workshops are recommended to give individuals opportunities
to explore and define the strange attractor fields discussed above.
Participants review barriers and anxieties related to their personal
understanding and experience of KM, and develop a PKMS populated with
appropriate personally-relevant cognitive, affective and resource related
factors. Workshop activities are based on a form of action learning pioneered
by Gaunt (1991). This approach utilises counselling and group work skills that
draw on psychodynamic and Gestalt theories. It is favoured over the “project
model” advocated by Revans (1982) because of its recognition that affective
factors affectinfluence
performance.
During a workshop,
participants are familiarised with Egan’s problem solving process (Egan, 2002).
This process is about exploring a problem, then moving to a detailed
understanding of the underlying issues, followed by action planning. People
develop the skills to look below the waterline of the ‘iceberg’, and explore
the semi- and un-conscious motivations and defences operating when KM is being
introduced.
Longer-term action
learning groups are formed at the end of a workshop program, and this activity
is captured in an individual’s PKMS, and as appropriate, in the overall
organisational KM system. A large number of individuals can pass through the
PKMS workshops in a few weeks, meaning that in a few months an organization can
develop a very knowledgeable KM implementation community.
Future Trends
Given the antipathy in so
many organizations to acknowledging anything other than surface level affective
factors as critical to performance, and in particular to KM which is so
dependent on social complexities for its success, practice is not quickly going
to inform theory. This is however a very fruitful area for research and
promising work continues to appear; for example Byron (2008).
Closing Remarks
In this paper reasons
why non-rational affective factors can critically help or hinder a KM
initiative have been discussed. Means for acknowledging, exploring and
positively influencing these affective factors have been reviewed. The
intention has been to heighten awareness and understanding of these factors,
and to emphasise that by addressing them proactively KM initiatives have a much
greater chance of living up to their promise.
References
Allee, V. (1997). 12
principles of knowledge management. Training and Development, 51,
71-75.
Byron, K. (2008). Differential effects of
male and female managers' non-verbal emotional skills on employees' ratings. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2), 118–134.
Choo, C.W., &
Bontis, N. (Eds.) (2002). The strategic management of intellectual capital
and organizational knowledge.
Chua, A., & Lam, W.
(2005). Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(3), 6-17.
Coakes, E. (2006).
Storing and sharing knowledge: supporting the management of knowledge made
explicit in transnational organizations. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 579-593.
Dufour, Y., &
Steane, P. (2007). Implementing knowledge management: a more robust model. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 68-80.
Egan, G. (1973). Face to face.
Egan, G. (2002). The
skilled helper.
Figler, R., &
Hanlon, S. (2008). Management development and the unconscious from an
analytical psychology framework. Journal of Management Development, 27(6),
613-630.
Fitzgerald,
Fortune (1997). October 13.
Gabriel, Y., &
Gaunt, R. (1991). Personal
and group development for managers: an integrated approach through action
learning.
Gephart, R.P. (1993). The textual approach: risk and blame in disaster
sense-making.
Guzman, G.A.C., &
Wilson, J. (2005). The “soft” dimension of organizational knowledge transfer. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 59-74.
Heiskanen, T. (2004). A knowledge-building community for public sector
professionals. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today,
16(7), 370-84.
Kafai, Y.B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice:
designing, thinking, and
learning in a digital world.
Karaszewski,
R. (2008). The influence of KM on
global corporations' competitiveness. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 12( 3),
63–70.
Kouzes, J.M., &
Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge (2nd ed.).
Lucas, L.M. (2005). The
impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(4), 87-101.
Mahesh, V. (1993). Thresholds
of Motivation.
Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and
constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In M.E.D. Koenig
& T.K. Srikantaiah (Eds), Knowledge management lessons learned: what
works and what doesn’t (pp. 87-112).
Marqués, D.P., Simón,
F.J.G. (2006). The effect of knowledge management practices on firm
performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 143-156.
Maslow, A. (1943).
Theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50, 370-96.
Nonaka,
Nonaka,
Nosek, J.T. (2004). Group cognition as a basis for supporting group
knowledge creation and sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(4),
54-64.
Putnam, L.L., & Mumby, D.K. (1993).
Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In
Pyöriä,
P. (2007). Informal organizational
culture: the foundation of knowledge workers' performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(3), 16-30.
Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M., &
Revans, R.W. (1982). The origins and
growth of action learning.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd
ed.).
Scherer,
K., & Tran, V. (2003). Effects of emotion on the process of organizational
learning. In M. Dierkes, A. Antal, J. Child, &
Smith, P.A.C., &
Sharma, M. (2002a). Developing personal responsibility and leadership traits in
all your employees, part 1: shaping and harmonizing the high-performance
drivers. Management Decision, 40(8), 764-774.
Smith, P.A.C., & Sharma,
M. (2002b). Rationalizing the promotion of non-rational behaviors in
organizations. The Learning Organization, 9(5),
197-201.
Smith, P.A.C., &
McLaughlin, M. (2003). Succeeding with knowledge management: getting the
people-factors right. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress On
Intellectual Capital & Innovation.
Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing.
Wiig, K.M. (2000).
Knowledge management: an emerging discipline rooted in a long history. In C.
Despres & D. Chauvel (Eds.), Knowledge horizons.
Terms and
Definitions
Affective factors:
Individuals sustain consciously,
semi-consciously and unconsciously an extensive variety of affective factors
that vary widely and dynamically in response to their appreciation of past,
present and future contexts. Affective factors are beliefs, attitudes, emotions
and instincts, and may include mind-sets, trust, uncertainties, power needs,
fears, impulses, anxieties, openness, anger, spirituality, love, and survival
etc.
Focus, Will and Capability:
In the KM performance model described in this paper Focus represents a clear definition and understanding of the KM system proposed; Will represents strength of intent to action the performance defined in Focus; and Capability represents the wherewithal to transform into reality the KM system defined in Focus
Personal Knowledge Management System:
Each individual has a
unique understanding of the Focus, Will and Capability that the organization
has articulated for effecting a given KM system and what Focus, Will and
Capability they personally possess; either or both of these perceptions are
prone to error. The notion of a Personal Knowledge Management System involves
an individual exploring any such misconceptions and populating their own
knowledge-base with appropriate personally-relevant cognitive, affective and
resource related knowledge. This activity helps equip an individual to best
contribute to implementing the given KM system, and is best carried out in a
social learning process such as action learning, where personal development is
integrated with action.
Chaos Theory, Strange Attractors, and
Fields:
Chaos theory involves a
fundamental way of seeing the world based on change-related theories dealing
with complexity and chaos that have emerged over the last five decades from
physics and the study of non-linear systems. According to Chaos theory the
world is formed of complex dissipative structures in which disorder can be a
source of order, and growth is found in dis-equilibrium.
The richness of the
diverse elements in a complex system allows the system as a whole to undergo
spontaneous self-organization. Even the most chaotic of systems stay always
within certain boundaries called “strange attractors” providing order without
predictability.
Control under these
conditions may be created through the use of invisible forces called “fields”
that structure behaviour. An organization must develop a visionary core at its
“centre” to provide such fields. The organizational meaning articulated becomes
a “strange attractor”, and in this way individuals make meaning to produce order
from chaos, giving form to work, and structure to what is happening at the
level of the individual.