weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

Copyright 2001 ã weLEAD, Inc.

 

Leadership, Culture, and Knowledge Management

By J. Howard Baker and Greg A. Baker

 

Human beings have been wrestling with “knowledge issues” from the beginning of history. People have been caring for and sharing knowledge ever since man first shared the knowledge of how to make fire. 1 Today this caring for and sharing of knowledge has become one of the hottest topics in business. It is called knowledge management (KM).

 

In his book entitled The 8 Practices of Exceptional Companies, Jac Fitz-Enz shows the critical importance of knowledge in the information age:

 

“As Peter Drucker has pointed out: In the new information economy knowledge is not just another resource, it is the most powerful resource. Knowledge is created by the interaction of people within an organization. Organizations are more than information processors, they are information and, even more important, they are knowledge creators. In effective organizations of the information economy, people are continually learning and reshaping their organizations.”  2

 

An exact definition of knowledge is illusive. Most scholars recognize that data, information, and knowledge are not the same. However, while definitions in the professional literature are often vague, imprecise, or even contradictory, the three concepts are certainly intertwined and interrelated. Most agree, “Information can be made tangible and represented as objects outside of the human mind. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a much more elusive entity—while some see it as an object, others regard it as an interpretation or representation that is constantly re-negotiated.” A number of authors argue that knowledge should be understood as socially constructed. 1

 

In recent years the importance of knowledge management within organizations has risen dramatically. Globalizations, rapid change (making knowledge obsolete faster), the need to constantly learn and innovate, downsizing, turnover, information overload, and the need to share best practices (practices that have produced outstanding results in another situation 3) have been significant factors in this growth. Being able to effectively manage knowledge within an organization can yield great benefits, including the achievement of competitive advantage. 4 Thus, knowledge management has “received the attention of chief executives and KM as a concept has become vividly debated.” 1

 

Knowledge management is often referred to as an application of information systems, since information systems provide an infrastructure for capturing and transferring certain kinds of knowledge. 4 However, many questions remain regarding how information technology affects the interaction between information and knowledge. “How can the knowledge that resides within the organizational members be made visible using information technology?” “How should information technology be used to leverage the knowledge of the organizational members?” 1

 

The recent growth in importance of knowledge management within the field of information systems, along with related issues such as organizational learning and organizational memory, has not been trivial. For instance, the Journal of Management Information Systems, with guest editors Thomas Davenport and Varun Grover, published a special summer 2001 edition dedicated to knowledge management. 5 The Decision Support Systems journal did a call for papers in 1999 for a special edition on knowledge management. In its call for papers it said:

 

“Over the past two years there has been an explosion of interest in the field of knowledge management. In the corporate world, a 1998 Delphi Group survey found that over half of respondents report active knowledge management (KM) efforts in their firms, nearly half see KM as a strategic issue, and 80% see KM as making important contributions to business practice. In academia, KM is finding its way into courses, KM research centers are being formed, and endowed professorships in KM have begun to appear.” 6

 

However, as important as information systems are to modern knowledge management, they do not actually create knowledge or guarantee that it will be shared or used. 4 An information system is just one aspect of knowledge management. Just as organizations must be viewed from multiple perspectives such as sociology, economics, and political science to be fully understood, so knowledge management must be viewed from multiple perspectives in order to be fully understood. 7

 

O’Dell and Grayson, in their book entitled, If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice, state that leadership, a healthy organizational culture, information technology, and measurement are all necessary enablers of successful knowledge management. 3 They are all intertwined and essential. This is referred to as the socio-technical perspective. This is why no single discipline can capture the whole meaning of knowledge management. Information systems professionals need to recognize that software alone will not solve knowledge sharing problems.

 

The term socio-technical is used to describe a method of viewing organizations that emphasizes the interrelatedness of the functioning of the social and technological subsystems of the organization. “Despite the growing tendency to emphasize the role of information technology in knowledge management, a growing number of studies are starting to provide powerful arguments for a more holistic view which recognizes the interplay between social and technical factors.” 8

 

“Although a variety of technologies can support it, knowledge management is really about changing people’s behavior to make their experience and expertise available to others.” 9 This means that issues of leadership, values, and organizational culture are at the very core of knowledge management.

 

Bob Buckman, president, chairman, and CEO of Bulab Holdings, Inc. asks:

 

“Question: What are the three factors in knowledge management?

Answer: Culture, culture, culture.” 3

 

Some scholars have suggested that knowledge management involves both explicit knowledge (knowledge that is systematic and codified) and tacit knowledge (residing in the heads of people or embodied in a particular organizational context). “It involves intangible factors embedded in personal beliefs, experiences, and values.” 8

 

Thomas Davenport and Laurence Prusak, in their book entitled, Working Knowledge, have this to say about values and beliefs:

 

“It may seem odd to include values and beliefs in a discussion of knowledge in organizations. Many people assume that organizations are objective and neutral…In fact, people’s values and beliefs have a powerful impact on organizational knowledge. Organizations are, after all, made up of people whose values and beliefs inescapably influence their thoughts and actions…Values and beliefs are integral to knowledge, determining in large part what the knower sees, absorbs, and concludes from observations.” 7

 

In essence, people within organizations organize their knowledge based on their values, and they share their knowledge based on these values!

 

Texaco is an international oil company with 18,000 employees in 150 countries. In a recent Fast Company article entitled, He Drills for Knowledge, John Old of Texaco offers some of his best thinking on the theory and practice of knowledge management. His observations confirm the critical importance of leadership, values, and relationship building that are regularly addressed in weLEAD articles. Here are some of John Old’s observations:

 

·        “Any technology solution will fail if it doesn’t recognize the importance of human connections.”

·        “It’s as much about creating personal relationships as it is about installing elegant applications.”

·        “You can’t force people to share knowledge…knowledge can only be volunteered; it can’t be conscripted.”

·        “Communities that are brought together by technology aren’t successful if they don’t have a clear, specific, easily measurable business purpose.”

·        “Trust and privacy are linked. I’m not worried about my privacy when I’m talking to or sending an email to someone I trust.” 10

 

Davenport and Prusak identify a number of cultural factors that inhibit knowledge transfer. He calls these inhibitors “frictions.” The very first “friction” in Davenport and Prusak’s list is a lack of trust! They suggest that building relationships and trust is critically important to the success of knowledge transfer. 7

 

In a January/February 2001 weLEAD article, “Is Servant Leadership Part of Your Worldview?” it is stated:

 

“Servant leadership also involves developing an organizational culture that exhibits a high level of trust. Trust is dependent on having trustworthy people.” 11

 

In a July 2001 weLEAD article, “This Is Heart Science” it is stated:

 

“Managers who desire predictability through high control crush creativity, initiative, and commitment. They may talk participation, but it is only surface deep. Their real desires ultimately result in producing cynicism within the culture. When employees genuinely know that they come first, the result is trust in the organization and love for their leaders. Leaders who feel they are not trusted and loved might do well to examine their own heart and motives. Is predictability and control more important to you than the growth of your people?” 12

 

Robert Greenleaf is considered to be the father of modern servant leadership ideas. He believed that “the rebuilding of trust—of people’s trust in their bosses, in their unions, in their corporations, in their schools, in their government, in each other” to be the central issue in our society. 13 Servant leaders engage in the building of high-trust cultures. Such a culture is critical to successful knowledge management implementation. If the culture's tendency is toward sharing and collaboration, ideas will flow more freely and people will not hoard knowledge. With a high trust culture knowledge management will be far more successful.

 

Stephen Covey says, “Trust is the highest form of motivation.” 14 “Trust determines the quality of the relationship between people.” 15 Stacy Rinehart says “consistency of character and the presence of integrity are the measure of true leadership.” 16 Violating trust is one of the fastest ways to reduce organizational effectiveness.

 

In a recent Knowledge Management Flash Poll, the question was asked: “What do you perceive to be the greatest impediment to knowledge sharing in your company?” From the 356 respondents, the highest response was a lack of trust. Almost a third of those responding said this was the most significant management or cultural barrier to being an effective knowledge sharing enterprise. It is interesting to note that 23.5% said “no support at the top.” This was the second highest response, and indicates a lack of effective leadership. 17

 

In an article entitled “Trust Matters” Phat Chiem says:

 

“Trust supports the knowledge management process by giving people confidence to propose new ideas and recognizes their contributions when these ideas succeed. In contrast, a lack of trust encourages workers to hoard knowledge that could help a company to reach its peak potential.” 18

 

William Ives, the Boston-based global director of knowledge management practices at Accenture says:

 

“The main objective is building a sense of community. You should be able to trust that the company is going to include your personal contributions in its success, that you’re going to get recognized for it and you’re not going to get penalized for speaking up.” 18

 

Nonaka and Takeuchi say, “Knowledge, unlike information, is about beliefs and commitment.”  19 The topic of paradigms (mental models) and worldviews is also critical to the discussion of knowledge management, but is beyond the scope of this article. (See “What Is The Right Way To Peel A Banana?” in the May issue of weLEAD for more discussion about paradigms.)

 

Davenport and Prusak say, “Values and beliefs are integral to knowledge, determining in large part what the knower sees, absorbs, and concludes from his observations. People with different values ‘see’ different things in the same situation and organize their knowledge by their values.” 7

 

Pan and Scarbrough state:

 

“To appropriate knowledge from someone else means having a shared code or mental model that enables the other to understand and accept that knowledge.” 8

 

Davenport and Prusak say:

 

“While we believe that all firms in business should have a positive orientation toward knowledge in their culture, many do not.” 7

 

Culture, which is a cornerstone of organizational learning, is the sum of opinions, shared mind-sets, values, and norms. 7 According to Hubert Saint-Onge of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce:

 

“Organizational culture is an often neglected dimension of organizational capability because it is largely operating at an implicit level. And yet, the organizational culture becomes even more important in knowledge-intensive organizations where a significant part of the organization is in people’s minds.” 2

 

Managing knowledge may seem simple in concept, but it is difficult to execute. This is true because knowledge management is not simply a technical issue. Knowledge management combines an understanding of information systems with purpose, ethics, principles, and leadership. It thrives in a high-trust culture. It is organic rather than mechanistic, holistic, rather than separable, often subjective rather than objective. Our institutions have demonstrated the capacity to unleash vast technological power and process enormous amounts of information, but will we have the understanding and wisdom necessary to use it in synergistic, holistic, creative, and constructive ways? We will not if we approach knowledge management with outdated paradigms from the Industrial Age.

 

Many organizations today are obsessed with information and technology, yet these same organizations often have very little understanding about what it takes to have a successful knowledge management strategy. Too many of our institutions are unable to adequately achieve the purpose for which they were created, yet they continue to exist, alienating and disheartening the people that work in them. Industrial Age, hierarchical, command-and-control institutions are failing to provide the kind of leadership and high-trust culture necessary to foster knowledge sharing! 20

 

Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs) in organizations are recognizing the merging of information, strategic, and financial leadership, and “the roles of the CEO, COO, CIO and CFO—among others—are being called into a partnership for the future. It's known as a CXO partnership, and it requires new skills in today's leaders.”  21

 

Leadership roles in the 21st century must continue to become more integrated. It is obvious that there is a need for future leaders to have a fundamental change in how they view leadership (a paradigm shift). Just as “old distinctions between manufactured objects, services, and ideas are breaking down,” so are old distinctions between information technology, leadership, organizational culture, and the values and beliefs within organizations. Organizations are realizing that their continued existence will depend on the “day-to-day mobilization of every ounce of intelligence.” 7

 

Alvin Toffler, author of The Third Wave, points out that the ability to synthesize and integrate is not merely useful in the information age—it is crucial!  22

 

Unfortunately, many universities and graduate schools “continue to thwart the natural craving for organization and synthesis by encouraging increasingly narrower and more intense specialization.” 22

 

Dee Hock, founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA International, laments that we seem to be “locked within our separatist, linear, mechanistic institutions, confined within our ever more isolated specialties, constricted by ever narrowing perspectives…” 20

 

The creation of weLEAD has been in response to this growing need to integrate the best in leadership thinking from multiple perspectives and make it readily available using the latest information systems technology. It is dedicated to promoting personal transformation and organizational reconception, which will result in more caring and intelligent organizations. Future plans at weLEAD call for utilization of the best information technology available to create a professional environment of knowledge sharing.

 

 

Comments to J. Howard Baker: jhb001@juno.com

Comments to Greg A. Baker: gabaker@sbinfra.com

 

 

BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE

 

Biographies:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

Greg A. Baker is a Structural E.I.T. at S&B Infrastructure, Ltd. (www.sbinfra.com) in Houston, Texas where he designs bridges and other transportation related structures.  He is a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers.  He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Texas A&M University, and a M.S. in Civil Engineering from University of Notre Dame.  He has co-authored publications published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.

 

 

References:

 

  1. Stenmark, D. The Relationship between Information and Knowledge, in Proceedings of IRIS 24, Ulvik, Norway, August 11-14, 2001

 

  1. Fitz-Enz, Jac. The 8 Practices of Exceptional Companies: How Great Organizations Make the Most of Their Human Assets. New York: American Management Association, 1997.

 

  1. O’Dell, Carla and C. Jackson Grayson. If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice. New York: The Free Press, 1998.

 

  1. Pearlson, Keri E. Managing and Using Information Systems: A Strategic Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

 

  1. Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer 2001, Vol. 18, No. 1.

 

  1. Call for Papers – DSS: Knowledge Management in Support of Decision Making. Web: http://www.uky.edu/BusinessEconomics/dssakba/dsscall.htm

 

  1. Davenport, Thomas H. and Laurence Prusak. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.

 

  1. Pan, Shan L. and Harry Scarbrough. Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, September 1999, Vol. 11, Issue 3, p 259.

 

  1. Garner, Rochelle. Knowledge Management. Computerworld. August 9, 1999, pp 50-51.

 

  1. Warner, Fara. He Drills for Knowledge. Fast Company. September 2001, pp 186-191.

 

11. Baker, J. Howard (2001), “Is Servant Leadership Part of Your Worldview?”. weLEAD, Vol. 1, No. 1, January/February, Web: http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/jan01/hb-jan01.html.

 

12. Baker, J. Howard (2001), “This Is Heart Science”. weLEAD, Vol. 1, No. 6, July, Web: http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/july01/hb-july01.html.

 

13. Spears, Larry, editor.  Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers.  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.

 

14. Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.

 

15. Covey, Stephen R. Principle-Centered Leadership.  New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

 

16. Rinehart, Stacy T. Upside Down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership.  Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998.

 

17. Lack of Trust Hinders Sharing: A KMM Flash Poll. Knowledge Management. June 2001. Web: http://www.destinationcrm.com/km/dcrm_km_article.asp?id=876

 

18. Chiem, Phat X. Trust Matters. Knowledge Management. May 2001. Web: http://www.destinationcrm.com/km/dcrm_km_article.asp?id=826

 

19. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

 

20. Hock, Dee. Birth of the Chaordic Age. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999.

 

21. Wallington, Patricia. Time to Create a CXO Coalition. CIO Magazine. August 1, 2001. Web: http://www.cio.com/archive/080101/leadership.html

 

22. Maas, David F. The Images of Order. New York: Peter Lang, 1988.