A Performance-Based Approach to Knowledge Management
Part 1: The “New Science” Platform
Peter Smith, The Leadership Alliance Inc., Meenakshi Sharma, Sharma Consulting
ABSTRACT:
Proposes a performance-based approach to the design and implementation of Knowledge Management (KM). Sets out a “New Science” foundation for the approach, and in particular explores means to shape the “people factors” that are critical to the success of a KM initiative.
Introduction
Knowledge Management (KM) in all its various forms has been proposed by many authorities as the means to attempt to optimize enterprise performance and longevity in the face of the very rapidly increasing complexity and ambiguity of our modern world. In this paper we propose a performance-based approach to the design and implementation of KM that facilitates identification, clarification, and exploitation/remediation of factors that impact usage and efficacy of a KM system. We maintain that our approach is appropriate for virtually any definition of KM.
It is our contention that successful KM is critically dependent on the collaborative nature of the organization’s social fabric. Dixon (2000; pp. 5) argues that deliberate attempts to create such a culture are counterproductive, suggesting that a better approach is to encourage employees to share what interests them. One of us (Smith) has successfully taken a similar approach for the development of learning organizations (for example Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996) whereby roles were re-designed to include collaborative learning as a matter of course. In this article we will explore various means by which an organization can develop a collaborative culture without it attempting to mandate one.
In reflecting on complexity and organizational management from a psychoanalytical point of view, Gabriel (1999; pp. 280-288) notes that in today’s chaotic business climate it is to be expected that managerial rigidity and faith in authoritarian control will rise with feelings of insecurity and uncertainty, although such faith is largely misplaced. Clearly this is antithetical to the kinds of open trusting cultural and social behaviours that support KM. Goldstein (1992; pp. 16) contends that what are needed in today’s organizations are authority relationships, not authoritarian relationships. In an authority relationship the supervisor sets the boundaries and context for the work and the supervised individual exercises judgement in how to carry out the work. The supervised individual also has the right to negotiate a change in the boundaries. If the supervisor abdicates this responsibility or sets fixed boundaries, the supervised individual becomes more rigid as (s)he is made to feel responsible for tasks and outcomes that (s)he cannot control. In our view, the consequences of this will be development and maintenance of a culture that will not be motivated to exploit the full power of a KM system.
Therefore our objective throughout this paper is to explore means to position (without mandating it) an organization in the “Innovative Organization” and “Collaborative Culture” quadrant of Figure 1. This provides the organization with an optimal balance of formative/normative mindsets so important to organizational viability in times of high business turbulence (Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996), and fosters the kind of socio-cultural attitudes (e.g. trust, inspiration, commitment) that promote usage and exploitation of a KM system whilst ensuring that such activities are fully targeted on the organization’s business direction and imperatives (Smith, 2001). In other words we believe that in this cultural context an individual employee will not only consider it part of their role to shape and utilize a KM system effectively, but will also see this as fulfilling in a self-actualization sense. What Gratton (2000; pp. 85) calls “Engaging with the soul of the organization”.
In Part 1 of this three-part paper, a theoretical foundation for our
performance-based approach to KM is set out. We then show how a KM initiative
can be designed, implemented and monitored using a simple three-element
performance model. In Parts 2 and 3 we will explores means to shape factors
that are critical to the success of a KM initiative.
A Performance-Based Approach To KM: The “New Science” Platform
In this section we will discuss the theoretical platform for our performance-based approach. The platform is based in complexity and field theory, which are concepts of physics (Gleick, 1987). These notions were first popularized as a “New Science” perspective on business organizations by Wheatley (1992), and later developed by other authors such as Mitroff and Linstone (1993), Kelly (1994), Sanders (1998), Gabriel (1999), and Lewin and Regine (2000).
A reading of Wheatley’s (1992) book will show that some of our questions regarding cultures antithetical to KM are essentially questions about an underlying way the world has been traditionally perceived. Ackoff (1981, pp. 6) calls this “Weltanschaung, our view of the world” and he goes on to say “This view has either an implicit or explicit impact on just about everything we think and do”. In spite of the passage of a decade, Wheatley concurs with Ackoff that the prevailing view in very many organizations was still outdated, and could not help significantly to deal with the complexity and turbulence of modern organizational life. Another decade on, we believe that unfortunately this is still true today, especially in the ability of the prevailing Weltanschaung to address employees’ attitudes regarding something as culturally stressful as KM.
As Ackoff points out (1981, pp. 11), in this prevailing perception, the world is viewed as a machine, not merely like one. In fact the world has often been compared to a hermetically sealed clock (ibid, pp. 11). This concept derives from the exclusive use of analysis, and the doctrines of reductionism and determinism rather than systemic thinking. The logical outcome of this world-view is a feeling of helplessness, inevitability, and the need for self-preservation not collaboration. There is a lack of motivation to do anything more than is necessary to satisfy “the boss” and overall this is certainly not the right climate for introduction of KM.
The alternative current view of the world contends that most organizations at the individual level are complex chaotic systems. Even the learning organization (Senge, 1990) by design is chaotic. Based on this alternative systemic perception, Wheatley (1992) sees the world not as clockwork, but as formed of dissipative structures in which disorder can be a source of order, and growth is found in dis-equilibrium, not in balance. In such a world-view, KM would surely be viewed as indispensable.
Figure 1
The very richness of the diverse elements in a complex system allows the system as a whole to undergo spontaneous self-organization (Waldrop, 1992); such a structure is never resting. Although it has clear boundaries, the self-organizing system merges with its environment and its history is tied to this environment. Self-organizing systems are adaptive, in that they don’t just passively respond to events the way a rock might roll around in an earthquake. They actively try to turn whatever happens to their advantage. Such systems by their nature should hold promise for successful exploitation of KM.
Chaos by itself does not explain the structure, the coherence, and the self-organizing cohesiveness of such complex systems. It turns out that even the most chaotic of systems stay always within certain boundaries called “strange attractors” (Gleick, 1987). In this way there is order without predictability. Successful systems have all somehow acquired the ability to bring order and chaos into a special kind of balance. This balance point is called “the edge of chaos” - this is where the components of the system never quite lock into place, and yet never dissolve into turbulence either (Gleick, 1987).
The edge of chaos is where new ideas and innovative genotypes are in tension with the status quo, and where the most entrenched old guard will eventually be overthrown. At this boundary, complex systems are constantly revising and rearranging their building blocks as they gain experience. This kind of behaviour led Weik (1979; pp. 223, 229) to assert “... it is only through action and implementation that we create the environment ... when we plan we aren’t responding to the environment, we are creating it through our intentions ... strategies should be just-in-time, supported by investment in general knowledge, a large skill repertoire, the ability to quick study, trust in intuition, sophistication in cutting losses”.
Capra (1982) based on studies of self-organizing systems and self-renewal, sees a requirement for development of more ingenious new forms of social organization. According to Capra, a successful organization will display systemic wisdom in its use of small scale, decentralized, responsive units, designed for increased self-sufficiency and maximum flexibility. It should not be inferred that the organization’s overall size must be small, although all things being equal, a small organization clearly has more opportunity to be agile. Rather, the organization must change its structure to feature such small-scale connected elements. In such an environment KM would seem to be indispensable.
According to Wheatley, some of the best ways to create continuity are through the use of forces we cannot see, called “fields”. Many scientists now work with the concept of fields - invisible forces that structure space or behaviour. For example, Bateson (1988) asserts that control in chaotic systems is exercised through “dynamic connectedness”. Mitroff and Linstone (1993) advance the idea that the organization exists on many levels and one of them is the area for diffusion of innovation - independent of hierarchy or whatever - creating “fields of meaning” for action. Boisot (1994) holds similar views, seeing turbulence as a source of new order. To ride this turbulence and absorb uncertainty the organization needs what Boisot calls an “organizing gestalt” that functions much like a field. An organization’s visionary core must be developed at its “center” to provide such fields (McNeil, 1987; Parker, 1990; Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996).
Wheatley (1992, pp. 133) believes that “ ... what leaders are called upon to do in a chaotic world is shape the organization through concepts, not through elaborate rules and structures”. The organizational meaning thus articulated becomes Gleick’s (1987) “strange attractor”, and in this way individuals make meaning to produce order from chaos. She adds “ .... when meaning is in place in an organization, employees can be trusted to move freely, drawn in many directions by their energy and creativity. There is no need to insist, through regimentation or supervision, that any two individuals act in precisely the same way. We know they will be affected and shaped by the attractor, their behavior never going out of bounds. We trust that they will heed the call of the attractor and stay within its basin. We believe that little else is required except the cohering presence of a purpose, which gives people the capacity for self-reference” (ibid, pp. 136).
We contend that vision is a field, and we echo Robert Haas who said when he was CEO of Levi Strauss & Co. (Howard, 1990) “conceptual controls are the way to create it”. These controls are the business ideas that act as fields to give form to work, and structure what’s happening at the level of the individual. Space is never empty; the organization seeks to fill business space with coherent messages; care must be taken that dissonant messages don’t creep in as employees bump into conflicting fields, and it all becomes a jumble. The organization must allow appropriate autonomy at the local level, letting individuals or units be directed in their decisions by guideposts for organizational self-reference (Smith and Saint-Onge, 1996).
The theoretical platform for the performance-based approach to KM we are advocating is embodied in the concepts advanced by the authorities cited above, being founded on the principles of self-organizing systems and self-renewal plus development and maintenance of “fields of meaning” or “conceptual controls”. It is logical to assume that successful KM will be highly correlated with the degree to which a community displays collaboration and agility; and such characteristics are consistent with these kinds of self-organizing systems.
A practical performance system to realize these principles, and to provide a framework to successfully design and implement KM is discussed in the next section. The performance system is comprised of three elements or “fields”(Focus, Will, Capability). Performance is driven by the business outcomes desired and the concept has been used successfully in a number of organizational settings (Smith, 1993; Smith, 1997). Performance in this context pertains to, but may not be limited to, KM performance.
A Performance-Based Approach To Knowledge Management: A Practical
Three-Element “Field” System
A practical three-element “field” system to actualize the performance-based approach to KM we are advocating is described in this section. The three systemic elements or fields are termed Focus, Will and Capability. The model is presented in Figure 1 and represents an outcomes-driven system for KM performance.
The model has been introduced successfully since the mid-80’s by one of us (Smith) to enhance general performance in organizations as diverse as Exxon (Smith, 1993), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Smith and Saint-Onge, 1996), and IKEA (Drew and Smith, 1995). In particular Drew and Smith (1995) apply the model to performance optimization in the face of change. The model has also been used in a number of instances as the practical means to facilitate the development of a learning organization and leadership (Smith and Saint-Onge, 1996). A very detailed account of its use in learning applications and in establishing linkages to business outcomes has also been published (Smith, 1997). It has also been used as a foundation for a practical approach to dynamic strategic planning (Smith & Day, 2000).
According to this model, performance is envisaged as dependent on three elements, or fields as described in the previous section; namely Focus, Will and Capability. These three fields form a dynamic system. The actual current performance level achieved by the system depends on the interactions and interdependencies of the three fields.
Focus represents a clear definition and understanding of the performance 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 associated with attitudes, emotions, beliefs and mindsets. Capability represents the wherewithal to transform into reality the performance defined in Focus; Capability is associated with such diverse areas as skills, SW/HW, infrastructure, budgets, tools, physical assets etc. A change in any one of these fields may effect a change in the state of one or both of the other fields.
The most favourable set of conditions for optimal performance occurs when Focus, Will and Capability form a self-reinforcing system, with all fields in balance and harmony. As Figure 2 shows, current performance potential is represented by the degree of overlap of the circles; optimal performance being represented by complete congruence of all three circles.
Areas shown in Figure 2, where only two model fields overlap, are typical of real-life situations. These imbalances and lack of congruence typically lead to misdirected and wasted efforts as well as loss of performance. For example, organizations often concentrate on developing an I/S KM system (strong Capability) without regard for the fact that their employees don’t understand why KM is needed (weak Focus) or a cultural feeling that an individual’s knowhow is their source of power (absent Will). The key to performance optimization is the continual dynamic tuning of the degree of overlap of the fields based on re-making and re-shaping meaning through development initiatives.
Figure 2
As Figure 3 illustrates, the performance model is consistent across all levels of the organization; however, the meaning of Focus, Will and Capability will change to reflect the changing context. This is a very important strength of the model. For example, at organizational levels the fields will be designed to explore/achieve strategic KM objectives, but will provide broad consistent guidelines within which, for example, fields generating appropriate team or personal KM objectives, roles etc. can be defined.
Measurement of the performance status is therefore related to measuring and comparing the current state of the performance system model versus design ideals. As is shown in Figure 4, the model fields can be envisaged as moving on three vectors. This provides the mechanism by which quantification of the changing states of the fields can be achieved e.g. using questionnaires (Tosey and Smith, 1999). In this way the exercise of personal responsibility and leadership can be monitored and the fields shaped dynamically to promote it.
This performance system is conceptually simple and elegant, and is easily grasped at any level of the organization (Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996). In addition it is wholly consistent with the notions discussed above regarding dynamic connectedness, fields of meaning for action, and organizing gestalt. The performance model provides a visionary core at the organization’s “center” to invoke such fields (McNeil, 1987; Parker, 1990) and stimulate discussion and clarification. This is very important since as was noted earlier, space is never empty; an organization must seek to fill business space with coherent messages. Otherwise, dissonant messages will creep in as employees bump into conflicting fields, and it all becomes a jumble.
Figure 3
The model’s fields represent the ideas that provide the “conceptual
controls” essential to actualizing the kind of KM vision espoused for the
organization (Howard, 1990). They act as fields to give form to work, and
structure what’s happening at the level of the individual. As discussed
in the previous section, once ideal Focus, Will, and Capability are defined,
the system forms a “strange attractor”, and individuals in the organization
will make meaning to produce order from chaos through these fields. That means
that when Focus, Will and Capability are defined appropriately, KM will be
promoted naturally.
Figure 4
The model is particularly important because it provides three “levers” that in principle can be set by senior management in concert with employees to position the organization to attain overall high-performance, including KM. Furthermore as has been indicated, the current positioning of the “levers” can be checked via instruments such as simple questionnaires, and can be compared to the designed settings (Smith & Tosey, 1999; Tosey & Smith, 1999). Other methods for assessing and checking the status of the three fields have been detailed elsewhere (Drew & Smith, 1995).
Based on the authors’ lengthy experience in “field” implementation, Capability is most likely to be overdeveloped; Focus underdeveloped; and Will essentially undeveloped. Yet to optimize, or even maintain good performance, it is critical that balance and harmony are maintained among all the fields, since too much emphasis on any one or two of the fields is probably worse that too little. This is because valuable resources will be wasted, and since little good eventuates from their expenditure, a “credibility black hole” will be created that negates potential later efforts.
In Part 2 of this paper we will show how to test for over- and under-emphasis on individual fields, how to recognize signs of imbalance, and how to remedy weaknesses. In addition we will discuss what we consider to be serious and widespread shortcomings in development of each of the fields and practical means to redress them in promoting the successful exploitation of KM.
References
Ackoff, R.L., Creating The Corporate Future, John Wiley, New York, 1981
Bateson, G., Mind and Nature, Bantam Books, New York, 1988
Boisot, M.H., Learning as Creative Destruction, in Boot, R., Lawrence, J., Morris, J. (Eds), Managing the Unknown, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, 1994
Capra, F., The Turning Point, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1982
Dixon, N.M., Common Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2000
Drew S.A.W., Smith, P.A.C., The Learning Organization: Change Proofing and Strategy, The Learning Organization, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1995
Gabriel, Y., Hirschhorn, L., McCollom Hampton, M., Schwartz, H.S., Swogger Jr., G., Organizations In Depth: The Psychoanalysis Of Organizations, Sage, London, 1999
Gleick, J., Chaos, Harmondsworth: Penguin, New York, 1987
Goldstein, J., The Unconscious Life Of Organizations: Anxiety, Authority, And Boundaries – An Interview With Larry Hirschhorn, Ph.D, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1992
Gratton, L., Living Strategy, Pearson Education, London, 2000
Howard, R., Values Make the Company: An Interview with Robert Haas, Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1990
Kelly, K., Out of Control New York: Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1994
Lewin, R., Regine, B., The Soul At Work, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000
McNeil, A.,The “I” of the Hurricane, Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 1987
Mitroff, I.J., Linstone, H.A., The Unbounded Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993
Parker, M., Creating Shared Vision, Dialog International, Clarendon Hills, 1990
Sanders T.J., Strategic Thinking and the New Science, The Free Press, New York, 1998
Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline, Century Business, Random Century, London, 1990
Smith, P.A.C., Getting Started As A Learning Organization in Watkins K.E. and Marsick, V.J., Sculpting The Learning Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1993
Smith, P.A.C., Saint-Onge, H., The Evolutionary Organization; Avoiding A Titanic Fate, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996
Smith, P.A.C., Performance Learning, Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 10, 1997
Smith, P.A.C., Tosey, P., Assessing the Learning Organization: Part 1 – Exploring Practical Assessment Approaches, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999
Smith, P.A.C., Day, A., Strategic Planning As Action Learning, Organisations & People, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2000
Smith, P.A.C., Developing the “Adult” Leader, The Leadership Alliance Inc., Toronto, 2001; http://www.tlainc.com/ldrwhpap.htm
Tosey, P., Smith, P.A.C., Assessing the Learning Organization: Part 2 – Exploring Practical Assessment Approaches, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1999
Waldrop, M.M., Complexity, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1992
Weik, K., The Social Psychology of Organization, Random House, New York, 1979
Wheatley, M.J., Leadership and the New Science, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 1992
About The Authors:
Peter Smith is President of TLA Inc. with an
international consulting practice centred on development of organisation-wide
leadership behaviours. He is Professor, Learning Process, Canadian School of
Management; Executive Director, International Foundation for Action Learning –
Canada; Chair, International Community of Action Learners; he is also active as
a writer, editor and speaker…….Tel (Canada): [001] 905-853-9553; Tel (UK): [011
44] (0)7762 155747;
Email: pasmith@tlainc.com
Meenakshi Sharma is a consultant and trainer in personal and organisation development. She works with organisations in creating solution-focused strategies for the development of the individuals and the organisation. She has experience of working with all levels of management and front-line staff in implementation of these performance-improvement strategies…………Tel (UK): [011 44] ( 0)1453 755170; Email: meenakshi_sharma@lineone.net