A Performance-Based Approach to Knowledge Management
Part 2: Shaping and Harmonizing Focus, Will, and Capability
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.
In Part 1 of this three-part paper, a theoretical foundation for our performance-based approach to KM was constructed. We also showed how Km could be designed, implemented, and monitored using a simple performance system comprised of the three fields Focus, Will and Capability.
In Part 2 we examine important factors that shape the state of these three fields, and explore various aspects of serious endemic shortcomings that we perceive in development of the fields. 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. Then we will discuss causes and resolution of the serious endemic shortcomings in field development.
Harmonizing Focus, Will and Capability
As described in Part 1, performance is envisaged as dependent on three fields, namely Focus, Will and Capability. 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, infrastructure, budgets, tools, remuneration etc.
Since the three fields form a dynamic system, the actual current performance level achieved depends on the interactions and interdependencies of the three fields, given that 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 1 shows, current performance potential can be represented in a Venn Diagram by the degree of overlap of the circles; optimal performance being represented by complete congruence of all three circles.
As discussed in Part 1, 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
1
As described by Smith & Tosey (1999) and Tosey & Smith (1999), the state of any of the three fields can be readily assessed from responses to a simple questionnaire that can be administered to the whole organization, or to any defined-target community. The questions need only be tailored to reflect that KM performance is monitored.
A wide range of initiatives can be launched to attempt to shape and harmonize the fields, bearing in mind as noted earlier that they form a system, and that a change in any one of these fields may effect a change in the state of one or both of the other fields. A selection of learning-related initiatives that could be targeted to KM is presented in Drew and Smith (1995; pp. 10). These initiatives are drawn from the literature and these authors’ include their judgement of the impact of the various approaches on Focus, Will and Capability. Initiatives more specifically related to KM are also widely available; for example at the strategic performance level (Itami & Roehl, 1987), general performance (Dixon, 2000), and technical (Applehans et al, 1999).
Although the above initiatives are likely to be impactful in shaping and balancing the three fields, we feel that typically there remain serious endemic barriers to implementing KM. These barriers will also be significantly detrimental to overall optimal performance, since as described in Part 1 it is our contention that a trusting collaborative culture is essential to organizational success and viability.
In the next section we discuss these barriers and their causes, together with our sense of what constitutes desirable organizational contexts. We will also briefly explore aspects of Eastern philosophies and religions that are in keeping with new science concepts (Capra, 1982; Mahesh, 1993; Dreher, 1996) and indicate how these notions may be utilized in shaping the three performance fields
General Discussion: Endemic
Performance Barriers and Means to Overcome Them
In this section we discuss a number of endemic shortcomings related to development of each of the three individual fields, Focus, Will and Capability. Given the highly systemic nature of their interactions, no attempt has been made to discuss individual fields in separate dedicated segments.
As was noted previously, in an effort to foster “ideal” performance, organizations typically explicitly over-develop Capability; under-develop Focus; and to all intents and purposes, do not develop Will at all. This does not mean that the fields of Focus or Will in the employee community are necessarily weak. On the contrary, Capability is exerted through “roles and tasks that exert overt and covert control over emotional displays” Putnam & Mumby, 1993; pp. 37), and hence there is an implicit effect on Will. This gives rise to situations where “organizations develop a social reality in which feelings become a commodity for achieving instrumental goals” (ibid, pp. 37) which has an implicit effect on Focus. These authors talk of “emotional labour” being expended in this effort (ibid; pp. 37); unfortunately this produces compliance and conformity, rather than the commitment that is the characteristic vital to high performance (Senge, 1990; Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996) and to effective utilization of KM. The overall result of the development of unbalanced and inappropriately targeted fields is that the behaviours are not exhibited that it is anticipated will produce “ideal” KM performance. Predictably poor results are typically achieved from the KM system.
The reasons that prevent organizations from achieving balanced well-targeted fields are complex and somewhat illogical, as one would expect where tacit feeling-laden concerns are involved. For example, organizations typically operate with a façade of rationality whereas Will involves “soft”, cultural, and often irrational issues that management finds difficult to deal with or admit. Will is often perceived as negative, linked to the expressive arenas of life rather than to the instrumental goal-orientation that drives organizations: “In addition to treating emotion as a physiological state, people regard emotion as a value-laden concept which is often treated as ‘inappropriate’ for organizational life. In particular, emotional reactions are often seen as ‘disruptive’, ‘illogical’, ‘biased’ and ‘weak’. Emotion, then, becomes a deviation from what is seen as intelligent” (Putnam & Mumby, 1993; pp. 36; attributed to Lutz, 1988; pp. 62).
In contrast, the fields of Capability and Focus are relatively easier to address, since they rely on production of tangible “evidence” such as vision and mission statements, action plans, systems, skills, and the like. Indeed an organization’s charter-marks tend to strongly emphasize these two fields. Although statements such as “Our people are our biggest asset” are routinely made in Intellectual Capital contexts, in our experience only lip service is paid to them.
Perhaps there is a fear in organizations that focusing on Will leads to anarchy or loss of control in achieving the goals of the organization. An alternative view suggests that this is not necessarily so:
“Organizations do not
need to abandon instrumental goals, productivity, or rationality to develop
alternative modes of discourse. Emphasizing work feelings calls for including
what is currently ignored or marginalized in organizational life. Rationality
is not an objective, immutable state. Rather it is socially constructed and
cast as the dominant mode of organizing. Rationality and technical efficiency,
however, should be embedded in a larger system of community and
interrelatedness. Perhaps organizations of the future could offer society a new
alternative, one shaped by emotionally-connected creativity and mutual
understanding as necessary elements for human growth.” (Putnam and Mumby, 1993;
pp. 55)
In our view, shaping a Will field to promote KM entails developing this culture of “emotionally-connected creativity and mutual understanding”. This requires that an alternative mindset be developed, one that views organizations as less rational and embraces all the complexity, one where the old ways of planning will seem obsolete. As Wheatley says: “I want to use the time formerly spent on detailed planning and analysis to create the organizational conditions for people to set a clear intent, to agree on how they are going to work together, then practice to become better observers, learners, and colleagues as they co-create with their environment.” (1992; pp. 46).
Because of the inter-related nature of the performance fields, creating such a culture means shaping Focus such that it pulls people towards the organizational goals rather than pushes them. Traditionally organizations formulate the KM vision/mission/goals in isolation and then cascade them downwards through the organization. This is not likely to positively influence the Will segment. Rather people must be pulled toward a visionary core through their involvement. This is accomplished by aligning the organizational vision to people, rather than the people to the vision (Mahesh, 1993; pp. 230-231; Kouzes & Posner, 1995; pp.129-133).
The benefits of collaborative shaping of Focus lie in each person’s subsequent actions and behaviours. When employees themselves clarify the KM Focus of the organisation, they gain more than a sense of direction and a means to define their code of conduct. The process helps them develop the appropriate Will. This is because each person will be motivated to act in accordance with the role-related responsibilities they have defined for themselves. This approach is analogous to the Hindu concept of “Dharma” set out in the Bhagavad Gita (Prabhavananda & Isherwood, 1944). Dharma is a code of conduct that can be associated with each individual’s role and duties, and that has proven to be a practical behavioural model for many hundreds of years. The Gita has other important practical implications for management practice (Beer, 1994) that will be touched on later in this section and in Part 3.
Organizations are blocked from taking this radical approach when managers’ views of their own relationship to work are out of step with the views of others. Mahesh (1993; pp. 60-63) describes an experiment conducted in different countries involving over 3000 people. Groups of managers/supervisors/ teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire on their own relationship to work and to answer the same questionnaire in behalf of other communities. A universal picture emerged: people always rate themselves as the harder workers and underestimate the work of others. In our own practice, one of us (Smith) has assessed how hundreds of managers in many different organizations view their own behaviour versus behaviour in the rest of their organization. In all cases managers see themselves as much more enlightened than the rest of their organization (Smith & Pamukoff, 1998). In both these examples the principles see the problem as “them” not “us”. Such a view operating within organizations clearly holds back the potential of a large section of its employees to embrace KM.
Our objective, as we noted earlier, is to position an organization in the “innovative” and “collaborative” quadrant of Figure 2. This provides the organization with an optimal balance of formative/normative mindsets so important to organizational viability (Smith & Saint-Onge, 1996) and fosters the kind of socio-cultural attitudes 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. It must not be forgotten that as Focus is being set, Will and Capability must also be developed to match.
Figure
2
An important factor in shaping the Will field is the understanding that in today’s business world those dubbed “leaders” no longer know all the answers, nor can they chart the organization’s work with subordinates lined up to do their bidding. Leaders and followers need each other. This however, gives rise to an uneasy balance (Hirschhorn, 1990). In a collaborative setting, the leader must make plain his/her own vulnerability, and risk that his/her followers may cease to see the leader as worthy of following. Likewise the followers must alter their passive dependent role and thus risk threatening and/or alienating their leader. In the desirable context envisaged in the Innovative/Collaborative quadrant of Figure 2, individuals are asked to collaborate with authority in shaping the organization’s direction and culture in the effort to make effective use of KM. People can no longer simply fulfill their role and duties. They must stay in touch with their own feelings and use them as the basis for negotiation with authority in regard to their roles. In this sense all employees must take personal responsibility and exercise leadership for the benefit of all. Shaping the Will field to address this vulnerability balance will be further discussed in Part 3 of this paper. A useful typology of authority is provided by Hirschhorn (1990; pp. 541), and the paradoxes of leadership have been explored at length by Farson (1996).
As discussed above, it is still the responsibility of each individual to work to achieve the goal(s), and to act according to the responsibility that comes with his/her role within the organization. Each individual has to feel that each act related to Km that he/she commits impacts the organization’s goal(s) and performance. Given the freedom to act in different ways implied in Figure 2, individual employees need to understand that there is a consequence to each act (however large or small the act) that will impact the organization, and subsequently the employees themselves. Also there can be no such thing as “not acting”. Even when someone “doesn’t do” something they have acted “in the act of ‘not doing’”.
This notion of responsibility is similar to the Hindu concept of “karma”. Karma, like dharma, has proven to be a practical behavioural model for many hundreds of years. According to karma, in the next life every person receives the fruits of their actions in the present life. This concept is fully consistent with the new science view of organizations discussed in Part 1, and when accepted fully, it becomes a powerful force in organizational life. This notion alerts us to the consequences of our actions; each action has impact on others but also on ourselves. It reduces the tendency for individuals to feel powerless “victims”. Each person contributes to the organization and KM as it is; and there is a co-creation of the culture of the organization. It has a powerful message “You are the organization”; there is no “them”. The teachings of Taoism also affirm that we are all part of a larger whole. Taoism is based on the Tao Te Ching (Mitchell, 1988) written by the sage Lao-tzu two thousand years ago. The Tao Te Ching “With classic precision and grace, describes the essential principles of systems theory in nature and human society” (Dreher, 1996; pp. 4).
Beer points out that the Gita (Prabhavananda & Isherwood, 1944) also underlines the notion of the systemic outcome of many inputs: “In reality, action is entirely the outcome of all the modes of nature’s attributes” (Beer, 1994; pp. 441). Most profoundly, systems thinking instructs us that the true consequence may not be immediate. As Sherosky so eloquently puts it “Every act and every thought is a moment of present truth and future reckoning” (1997; pp. 283). In an organisational setting this can have meaning in alerting individuals to the consequences of their actions over the short- and long-term life of the organisation. Secondly it emphasises the need to think actions through, not only for oneself but also for the wider organisation. The more individuals are positioned in the organizational context that is represented as the “innovative” and “collaborative” quadrant in Figure 2, the more they will act in a way that explores and gives weight to the consequences, and the more they will be motivated to make full use of KM.
In Part 3 of this paper we will outline some explicit initiatives that an organization can implement in order to influence the three performance fields such that overall “ideal” behaviours, including those that promote KM, will be potentially developed and maintained, and optimal performance realized.
References
Applehans W.E., Globe, A., Laugero, G., Managing Knowledge: A Practical Web-Based Approach, Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, 1999
Argyris, C., Overcoming Organizational Defences, Allyn And Bacon, Needham Heights, 1990
Beer, S., May the Whole Earth be Happy: Loka Samastat Sukhino Bhavantu, Systems Practice, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1994
Capra, F., The Tao Of Physics, 3rd Edition, Flamingo, London, 1982
De Heus, A.P., Planning As Learning, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, 1988
Dixon, N.M, Common Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2000
Dreher, D., The Tao Of Personal Leadership, Harper-Business, New York, 1996
Drew S.A.W., Smith, P.A.C., The Learning Organization: Change Proofing and Strategy, The Learning Organization, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1995
Farson, R., Management Of The Absurd: Paradoxes In Leadership, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996
Hampden-Turner, C., Creating Corporate Culture, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1990
Hirschhorn, L., Leaders And Followers In A Postindustrial Age: A Psychodynamic View, The Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1990
Honey, P., Mumford, A., Capitalizing On Your Learning Opportunities, Organization Design And Development, King Of Prussia, 1989
Itami, H., Roehl, T.W., Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1987
Kouzes, J.M., Posner, B.Z., The Leadership Challenge, 2nd Ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1995
Lutz, C.A., Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenges to Western Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988, in S. Fineman (Ed), Emotion in Organizations, Sage Publications, London, 1993; pp. 62).
Mahesh, V., Thresholds of Motivation, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 1993
Mitchell, S., Tao Te Ching, HarperCollins, New York, 1988
Prabhavananda, S., Isherwood, C. (Trans), Bhagavad Gita , Vedanta Society of California, 1944
PutnamL.L., Mumby, D.K., Organizations, Emotion and the Myth of Rationality, in S. Fineman (Ed), Emotion in Organizations, Sage Publications, London, 1993; pp. 36-57
Revans, R.W., The Origins and Growth Of Action Learning, Chartwell-Bratt, London, 1982
Sherosky, F.J., Perfecting Corporate Character, Strategic Publications, Clinton, 1997
Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline, Century Business, Random Century, London, 1990
Schein, E.H., How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge Of The Green Room, Sloan Management Review, Winter 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., Pamukoff, S., Unpublished Communications, 1998
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., 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
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