|
|
|
Preparing
for Conversations with Alex Bennet
Passion:
The Power Behind Knowledge Management
Alex Bennet
Former
CKO, Department of Navy, Founder, Mountain Quest Institute
Frost, WV, U.S.
Introduction
I
first 'met' Alex Bennet when I approached her by email to do
a story for Inside Knowledge Magazine. Our private dialogue
lasted two months and took me through a new learning phase of
my life. Most importantly I saw KM in a new light, but also learned
a lot of military acronyms and finally figured out the hierarchy
of the Department of the Navy, US Navy and Marines. Alex was
very pati ent
with me (most of the time) and the result is probably the best
piece of writing I've ever done. It so impressed the IKM
editor that the report became the cover story for the June issue.
But there's much more to Alex Bennet and her passion for KM than
the DoD story. She now raises horses on a farm she and her husband
bought in my home state of West Virginia, operates an idyllic
bed and breakfast there, and pilots the Mountain Quest Institute,
a learning and think tank facility and conference center devoted
primarily to human intelligence.
Alex,
with her partner and spouse Dave Bennet, is founder of the Mountain
Quest Institute, a research and retreat center nestled in the
Allegheny Mountains focused on achieving growth and understanding
through quests for knowledge, consciousness and meaning. See
www.mountainquestinstitute.com and www.mountainquestinn.com.
The
Bennet's most recent book, Organizational
Survival in the New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System (Elsevier,
2004), combines theory and practice in a new vision of the organization
to empower leaders, managers and professionals who must excel
in the age of complexity.
Alex,
well-known internationally as an expert in knowledge management
and an agent for organizational change, served as the Chief Knowledge
Officer and Deputy Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Integration
for the Department of the Navy, and was co-chair of the Federal
Knowledge Management Working Group. She has published extensively
in the KM field. Among her many awards and honors, Ms. Bennet
is the recipient of the Department of the Navy Distinguished
and Superior Public Service Awards, the National Performance
Review Hammer Award from the Vice President, and the National
Knowledge and Intellectual Property Management Task Force Award
for distinguished service and exemplary leadership. She was named
by Federal Computer Week as a member of the Federal 100 for the
year 2002.
Ms.
Bennet is a Delta Epsilon Sigma and a Golden Key National Honor
Society graduate with degrees in Management for Organizational
Effectiveness, Human Development, English, and Marketing; and
graduate certificates in Total Quality Management, System Dynamics
and Defense Acquisition Management. She holds a Ph.D. in Human
and Organizational Systems.
Jerry
Ash
Back
to top
Overview
Throughout
the years with the Department of the Navy-working in Acquisition
Reform as the Director of Communications, Education and Training,
becoming the Acquisition Reform Executive and Standards Improvement
Executive, then moving into the Chief Information Officer arena
as Deputy for Enterprise Integration, and finally as Chief Knowledge
Officer for the Department -- I became more and more focused
on the value of knowledge. I have had the opportunity to view
the value of this knowledge focus through different lenses from
the sailor on ship to the support contractor at home, from the
hands-on instructor to the senior executive, or-in other words-from
inside to outside, from the pragmatic to the systemic, from the
individual to the enterprise, from situation to context, from
reuse to the exciting creation and implementation of new ideas.
Overall, what I have learned is that we indeed create our own
reality, as an individual, as an organization, as a nation, and
as a world.
The
world we do this in today is different than when I was young.
Most of us embraced the faster, better, cheaper model, moving
our organizations toward becoming what we termed as "world
class." Then faster became instantaneous, and better encompassed
the entire world, and while cheaper remained important, it wasn't
as important as gaining people's attention, understanding of
and belief in what your organization had to offer. In many countries
wants overtook needs and there is no limit to the creativity
and desires of the human species!
We
use the acronym "CUCA" to describe this new environment,
that is, the accelerating rate of change, non-linearity promoting
increasing uncertainty, growing complexity, and the anxiety emerging
in each and every one of us as we face and interact with this
environment. New problems and challenges require new modes of
thinking, new concepts, new actions, and-the most difficult of
all-new ways of behaving! This thinking led my partner and I
to begin developing a new theory of the firm based on the intelligent
complex adaptive system (ICAS), a model that is itself a result
of the interconnections (possibly entanglements) and mutual interactions
of a number of ideas, concepts and structures, all contributing
to the integrity and effectiveness of the organization as a whole.
[See Alex & David Bennet, Organizational Survival in the
New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System (Elsevier,
2004)]
At
the highest level, the ICAS is an organization designed to continuously
adapt to and co-evolve with its environment. In a highly complex
dynamic environment, decisions must be made quickly at the point
of action, that is, by individuals at the point of contact with
customers, or (in asymmetric warfare) by the soldiers in the
midst of the conflict-those who have the best knowledge of the
context for that decision. Thus we come rather quickly to the
need for continuous learning and the on-going creating and leveraging
of knowledge to respond to unknown challenges and situations.
If we all didn't recognize this need-and the value of this focus
on knowledge-we wouldn't be having this conversation!
So,
taking a step backwards from the continuous and immediate requirements
of a Defense organization, I've spent the last year of my life
trying to understand more fully the phenomena of knowledge and
knowledge management, what is different about this focus, why
I find myself (and most of those I've interacted with through
the years) passionate about it, and, blatantly, what is its potential?
That led to my trying to understand passion as a starting point.
Back
to top
The
Research
The
research study explored the aspects of knowledge management (KM)
that contributed to the passion expressed by knowledge management
thought leaders. Further, it looked at the nature of that passion,
the relationship of thought leaders to those aspects, and, finally,
the nature of knowledge management itself. Passion is made up
of desires, behaviors, and thoughts that suggest urges with considerable
force and is used as a determinant or indicator of what is of
higher interest or great.
Across
four continents, almost all of the 34 thought leaders interviewed-working
in and with industry, academia and government-consider themselves
both practitioners and thought leaders. These thought leaders
included (in alphabetical order) Verna Allee, Debra Amidon, Ramon
Barquin, David Bennet, Juanita Brown, John Seely Brown, Francisco
Javier Carrillo, Robert Cross, Tom Davenport, Ross Dawson, Steve
Denning, Nancy Dixon, Leif Edvinsson, Kent Greenes, Susan Hanley,
Clyde Holsapple, Esko Kilpi, Dorothy Leonard, Geoff Malafsky,
Carla O'Dell, Larry Prusak, Madanmohan Rao, Tomasz Rudolf, Melissie
Rumizen, Hubert Saint-Onge, Judi Sandrock, Dave Snowden, Tom
Stewart, Michael J.D. Sutton, Karl-Erik Sveiby, Doug Weidner,
Steve Weineke, Etienne Wenger and Karl Wiig.
A
framework was developed to consider thought leader responses
in terms of their relationship to elements contributing to passion.
The tremendous diversity and multidimensionality among the aspects
surfaced in the thought leader responses span the entire spectrum
of the framework, including external and internal inducers, externally
observed and internally felt elements, and correlates to the
larger aspects of self. External stimuli include the field itself,
the breadth of the field (multidimensionality of experience),
the changing nature of the field, the excitement of new thinking,
challenges and opportunities, value and results (including transfer
and reuse of knowledge), and a sense of knowing. Throughout the
responses weave the themes of learning, sharing knowledge, and
a shift that is underway.
Thought
leaders link their passion to a higher order and consider passion
itself a reward. Thought leader values are closely connected
with the field, and, in the words of one thought leader, "Somehow
I've matched up people's value systems with a process."
The field of knowledge management appears to have a magnetic
attraction. One interpretation of these intense connections is
the resonance of the field with our fundamental nature as human
beings, those things identified in the framework that contain
the seeds of passion itself.
The
interviews also led to new insights into the nature of the KM
field itself. For example, the field of KM is self-referential,
complex adaptive, has no dominant leader and its nature supports
autotelic work. These are the insights (explicated below) are
the subject of this discussion, not in terms of validity, but
in terms of whatever understanding can be gained from them, and
how this understanding, this new way of thinking, can suggest
new actions and/or change our behaviors.
Back
to top
The
Question: Turning Passion into Action
A
bit different than previous conversations, my question is as
yet unanswered, for it deals with an uncertain future, not the
past: Considering these ideas, how can we move from thought to
action? How can we use these insights, these thoughts, to change
our behaviors -- as individuals, as organizations, as nations,
as an interdependent world?
I
have included an edited version of the discussion of research
(Chapter 5) here. For the original version of the full research
study see www.mountainquestinstitute.com under research,
knowledge and knowing, dissertation. For supporting data, read
"Chapter 4: Results" at the same location.
- Chapter
5: Discussion of Results
Introduction
When
I began this study, the relationship of thought leaders and their
passion looked like what is represented in Figure 14(a). After
developing and working with the basic framework for the study,
that relationship looked much more like what is represented in
Figure 14(b). Not only is passion a larger part of the whole,
but there is a continuous connection to both internal and external
inducers as well as what we have defined in our framework as
externally observed and internally felt elements and self correlates.
Figure
14: Relationship of thought leaders and their passion
In
like manner, when beginning this study it was assumed that the
aspects of KM that excited passion in its thought leaders could
be considered a subset of KM, with some of those aspects (such
as knowledge itself, since knowledge is created within people)
residing outside the KM field. This relationship is represented
in Figure 15(a). After exploring the rich response, it became
clear that the aspects that excited passion in KM thought leaders
were much larger than KM in terms of individual drivers
(such as needs and goals and values), external relationships
(such as organizational needs and goals and values), and environmental
factors (change, uncertainty, complexity, and so forth).
Figure
15: Relationship of KM and the aspects that create passion.
The
field of KM, and what it represents in terms of external events
and stimuli (knowledge sharing, networks, improved performance
of organizations, and so forth), is in the words of thought leaders
a tool for living in the world and with the world in
a more human and humane way. As such, the field of KM is
not only smaller than the aspects that participate in the passion
of its thought leaders, but in addition to its role as a subset
of these aspects it is also highly interactive and engaged in
the workings of the aspects that are outside of KM. One way of
thinking about this is by considering a focus area of KM such
as knowledge sharing. Certainly in an organizational setting,
sharing knowledge associated with the work at hand through community
and team structures has a direct impact on organizational efficiency
and effectiveness in terms of such things as solving problems,
creating new and better ways to work, and preventing repetition
of previous mistakes. However, this knowledge sharing also builds
relationships and facilitates learning and understanding, which
connotes larger engagement of the individual in the world in
which they live, going beyond the work environment. This translates
into a larger impact of the individual in and on society and,
in an autopoetic system, feedback to the individual, thereby
promoting growth. From this viewpoint, the relationship of the
aspects surfaced during this study and KM is represented in Figure
15(b). This new perspective, or in the words of one thought leader
"the grinding of a new pair of lenses," sets the stage
for discussing our results.
Back
to top
The
Primary Question
What
have we learned about those aspects of knowledge management that
foster passion in KM thought leaders? Certainly this response
is rich with insights and full with passion, but how can we further
explore and make sense of the response?
It
is not surprising that thought leaders themselves have passion.
In the literature review, it was confirmed through well-grounded
studies that reason and passion are both critical to our ability
to make proper decisions, and passion was linked with intellectual
pursuits, leadership, and creativity, all clearly part of thought
leadership. Passion was also identified in the thought leader
response as an attribute of being a thought leader. For example,
when describing thought leaders, one responder noted, "They
all have a passion of one sort or another. I think that fuels
continuous thought and desire for clarity . . . that's the way
it is for me." Another responder affirms, "You can
tell it in any of them . . . in the tone of their voice, and
their excitement, and you know it's contagious." This passion
was described in many ways. For example, "If you believe
it you try to show it to others" and "I guess they
all have a sense of mission, and this is sometimes even close
to religion or emotional feeling that you have a mission to achieve
and that you need to open the eyes of the people." This
latter responder goes on to explain, "This is also the reason
why so many people in this field are so involved in educational
projects or supporting this at the societal level." These
insights are not isolated in the response and clearly agree with
the literature review. So it is forwarded that passion is a natural
aspect of thought leadership.
So
what are those aspects of knowledge management that thought leaders
connect with the passion they express about knowledge management?
I
used a framework (repeated at Figure 16) developed from the literature
review to cluster those aspects that thought leaders specifically
expressed when responding to the question, "What about KM
excites your passion?"
Figure
16: Framework repeated.
Click
here for a larger view (PDF)
The
aspects mapped from thought leader response to this question
span the field of KM. Thought leaders also specifically call
out the field itself as one aspect to which they connect
their passion. Additionally, not only do the aspects closely
match the meaning of the descriptive terms in the passion
framework, but many of the words used to describe the meaning
are the same. Thought leader responses also span the entire sphere
of the framework. This mapping, and comparison of the elements
and aspects mapped, would appear to demonstrate the validity
of the framework in terms of the thought leaders' perception
of aspects of KM that excite their passion. This mapping also
presents a first cut at those aspects about KM that thought leaders
connect to their passion (presented in previous chapter). Recognizing
that many thought leaders consider the field itself as an aspect
they connect with passion, I then looked across the response
in terms of the framework.
In
exploring the aspects of knowledge management that thought leaders
connect with their passion, it appears that the knowledge management
field affects an entire spectrum of aspects that are connected
to passion, that is, there is not one single aspect (or a group
of aspects, or several groups of aspects) but a plethora of aspects
that include both internal and external inducers, externally
observed behaviors, internally felt emotions, and correlates
to a larger picture, offering the opportunity for us to make
a difference, promote the greater good and make our lives meaningful,
moving us through our own goals, values and needs to a purpose
beyond ourselves. The pattern that emerges is the tremendous
diversity and multidimensionality among these aspects.
The
field of knowledge management appears to have a magnetic attraction.
One interpretation of these intense connections between knowledge
management and its thought leaders-and, according to responders,
students coming into the field and most people who work in the
field-is the resonance of the field with the best of what it
is to be human. This is not surprising since the "best of
what it is to be human" could be defined in terms of our
framework built around those internal and external elements contributing
to passion. The results of the interviews clearly showed a close
relationship between the elements of the framework and the aspects
thought leaders connect to their passion. This is discussed further
below as we look at the nature of passion and the relationship
of thought leaders to the aspects.
Recognizing
that all elements of the framework are presented in overall thought
leader response, it is forwarded that all the passion elements
of the framework contribute to thought leader passion at some
level; howbeit, this does not mean that all these elements are
always present in every thought leader. To fully understand the
aspects that contribute to thought leader passion, it then falls
to us to look at the external events and stimuli that are a part
of this framework. Loosely clustered into eight areas these aspects
are: the field, the breadth of the field, the changing nature
of the field, value/results, new thinking, knowing, and the challenges
and opportunities (while this set is included in the previous
chapter, it is repeated here).
The
Field is spoken about in terms of when (every time, when
we get a program going, and so forth); advancing the field; defining
the field; understanding more about the field; and exploring
the nature of knowledge. (The nature of knowledge is addressed
in the earlier chapter). The Breadth of the Field is in
terms of the richness of multidimensionality of experience, including
assimilating the technical and scientific and the crossing of
traditional boundaries, and the amount of meat in the field.
The Changing Nature of the Field is in terms of change
itself, both in the nature of the field and in relationship to
changing behavioral habits. (The nature of the field is addressed
later in this chapter.)
Value/Results is communicated
in terms of the growing competitive advantage of knowledge in
the world; improved performance of organizations and enterprises;
results you can achieve; accelerated learning; the ability to
use resources at hand to solve problems; and the opportunity
for win-win solutions. Repeatedly mentioned was the Transfer
and Reuse of Knowledge in terms of making it explicit; not
repeating mistakes; and preventing knowledge from being lost
to the next generation.
New
Thinking
was spoken about in terms of intellectual excitement and creation
of new ideas; innovation; a shift in perspective and new view
of reality; having the new and generating practice at the same
time; networking and relational issues; and learning. Knowing
is in terms of knowing the right questions to ask, and who to
ask; knowing what you know; structuring what you know so it can
be reused and shared; the collective capacity to move forward
and deeper together around key issues that make a difference
to our lives; harnessing the collective know-how, experience
and intellect; and a sense that it is right.
Challenges
and Opportunities
are expressed in terms of the incredible opportunities and challenges;
getting people to share knowledge; confronting moral and political
dilemmas very openly; and moving decisions to knowledgeable people.
There were also a specific set of challenges addressed including:
the challenge of changing traditional power structures, the fiefdom
challenge, the challenge of lost opportunity cost, the formal/informal
inversion challenge, the challenge of getting stuck in the ruts,
the challenge of dreaming the world together, and other challenges
dealing with personal KM, organizational learning, creating value
in the future, erosion, balance, learning a new set of behaviors,
being overloaded with quality methodologies, and convergence
(see pages 82-90).
This
set represents the external events and stimuli specifically called
out by thought leaders, those things that fall within the context
of the field that are contributing to thought leader passion.
Exploring why the field itself is called out again and again
as one of the aspects that contribute to thought leader passion,
the nature of the field itself is discussed later. I now focus
on the secondary questions.
Back
to top
The Nature of This Passion
The
thought leader passion that came from specific aspects of the
knowledge management field was considered an additional reward
by many thought leaders. Thus the passion felt by these thought
leaders is very positive, and helped fuel their personal energy,
their personal satisfaction, and the love for their work. Although
some of these leaders admit they were passionate people, a number
of responses gave support to the claim that as part of that passion
there were values and aspirations of a higher order of meaning.
For example, in thought leader words: "nourishment and cultivation
of the future;" "the richness of multidimensionality
of experience;" "value of knowledge and what it can
do for society, for individuals, for interactions between individuals;"
"the creation of new ideas;" "overall human value;"
"I'm not wasting my time;" "I'm making a contribution;"
and "work really worthy." Such responses as these-and
many others-indicate that thought leader passion was not just
for their work but also for the higher good to which their work
contributes. This overall response would indicate that thought
leader passion is derived from a higher order.
Another
aspect of the nature of thought leader passion is the energy
level changes over the years they worked in KM. As Figure 12
(in earlier chapter) indicates, of the thought leaders who responded
in terms of level of energy, 38% thought their energy had steadily
increased over the years while 54% saw it as varying up and down
during their time in KM. This large percentage of thought leaders
with vacillating energy may be the result of, among other things,
changes in personal effectiveness, or in the image or reputation
of the KM field. Since higher order values and goals are usually
stable, the variations in energy would indicate that thought
leader passion is also dependent on other aspects than just higher-order
ones. But even this is confounded by the observation that when
you are high in passion, the most likely future will be one with
less passion. Since an individual's passion at a specific point
in time may be for a particular domain of KM, for example a technology
or strategy, their passion may vary with the success or popularity
of each domain. Still another possibility is the oscillation
between high passion from action and low passion from reflection
shown in Figure 13 of the previous chapter (not provided here).
Clearly, since each thought leader creates their own unique path
through the world in their part of the field, living their own
sequence of events in life, any or all of these interpretations-as
well as others-may apply.
Thought
leader passion for their work even changed their ontology. For
example, in thought leader words: "it's kind of like building
a whole new set of dispositions on how we see the world;"
"suddenly we see the world differently;" and "our
passion for this work changes aspects of who we are." To
these thought leaders, their passion was considerably more than
energy. It crept into their being, their basic existence,
and influenced how they saw themselves in the world. To some
thought leaders this passion is contagious, easily transmitted
to others, and building upon itself. For other thought leaders,
passion drives the work they do.
So
our data indicate that passion, as related to knowledge management
thought leaders, plays a spectrum of roles dependent on each
thought leader, their higher level values and goals, and their
knowledge management context. Although its fundamental role is
undoubtedly in raising the thought leader energy levels, there
seems to be many side shows taking over center stage, that is,
other aspects reflecting the elements of our framework appear
to be coming into significant play with different individuals
in different contexts.
The
Relationship of Thought Leaders to the Aspects
In
terms of intangibles, the response shows thought leaders have:
"a sense of mission;" "integrity, consistency
and persistence;" "the courage to stand by what you
believe;" "the humility to realize that it may not
be right;" "an openness for listening and seeing new
signals;" "a sincere desire to help people in organizations;"
"passion of one sort or another;" "an expanded
set of sensibilities;" "a true interest in improving
the system;" and "a social dynamic." In addition,
thought leaders have a more "full-blooded understanding"
of what it means to be human, what it means to be a worker or
employee, and what learning really means in these complex settings.
They also have an openness for listening and seeing new signals,
and balancing that openness with personal wisdom and a very humble
approach to moving along what one thought leader called the rhythm
related to applying wisdom. They also "become endlessly
prolific."
This
is an admirable set of attributes for anyone, much less for people
with influential roles in their field. The list indicates what
thought leaders think of each other, clearly showing the mutual
respect in the KM field and the strong value system that
has become embedded within the field. Since many responders
have tied themselves to lofty goals and values, and they have
given other thought leaders high marks of character, we conclude
that the knowledge management field, or at least this subset
of its thought leaders, are indeed a special group of talented
individuals working towards a higher purpose. This does not,
of course, imply they are without the human frailties that plague
us all.
An
important attribute of the knowledge management field is that
it offers a win-win playground with high moral, social and
economic payoff for players. This may well be the most powerful
force in its favor, and certainly serves as a precursor for changing
the nature of competition. KM has a large domain with few guidelines
and rules. This is partially due to its youth, but more likely
due to its scope and nature. In contrast, some fields of inquiry
(physics, engineering, psychology, and so forth) are disciplines
with relatively clear-albeit changeable-principles, guidelines
and procedures.
In
general, thought leaders are excited to see their ideas accepted
and implemented by others. This is to be expected from professionals
who write books and give talks in new areas. In terms of ownership,
some thought leaders are happy to have others use their ideas
even if the originator receives no credit. Several thought leaders
consider their ideas as children, growing up and leaving home.
Ideas were seen to be the focal point of their work, sometimes
thought of as seeds to be planted and nurtured in the fertile
field of knowledge management. Some thought leaders give ideas
a life of their own, to be sent out into the world, tested, and
ignored or improved. Overall, the relationship between thought
leaders and their ideas is a very close and endearing one. However,
since thought leaders often create ideas from the ideas of other
thought leaders, they generally recognize and respect all good
ideas and are aware of the social nature of ideas-that ideas
beget more ideas, possibilities explode, and everyone benefits.
Thus the importance of knowledge sharing to thought leaders and
to the field.
From
the viewpoint of its thought leaders, KM is value laden. The
nature of KM work brings out and builds on values and value systems.
Knowledge, together with its progenitor learning, is considered
by many thought leaders to be a value, something worth doing
for its own sake. Creativity, value creation, creating extraordinary
results, and building a well-functioning organization all lead
to fulfilling something worthwhile in people's lives. Living
networks and solving difficult problems also have inherent value
unto themselves. In Appendix D (not provided here), 65 thought
leader values are identified, explicated, and their relation
to KM described. A cursory review of appendix D clearly shows
the close ties that exist between the value, the thought leader
and the knowledge management field. When personal values are
reinforced by a field of work such as KM, amazing results can
accrue. Forwarded by the data, there is energy, personal growth,
loyalty to the field and long term personal satisfaction. And
to paraphrase one thought leader, there is a direct relationship
between values and passion.
One
responder who was successfully implementing a collaboration process
for harvesting and restructuring relevant knowledge that could
be reused, said that people seemed to be able to identify with
this process very easily and recognize value in it. It was rewarding
to him that a large number of people as well as management in
this large organization were really demonstrating some passion
around this approach. As this thought leader reflected, "I
haven't quite figured out why, other than I think they really
believe it's the right thing to do. Somehow I've matched up a
large group of people's value systems with a process." This
is clearly the resonance of the field with the best of what it
is to be human described earlier in this chapter.
The deep relationship
thought leaders have with the field is clearly connected to their
passion, a relationship grounded by their research, experiences,
relationships, networking and values. The potential offered by
knowledge-at the core of the field-simultaneously intersects
with the self and humanity, the internal and the external, in
such a way as to offer the potential to make a difference for
individuals and organizations. These thought leaders learn, share,
teach, lead, and make sense of the world, moving toward what
some of them refer to as a state of wisdom. While almost half
of the responses could easily support this model, this intersection
has been briefly visualized in Figure 17.
From
a knowledge management perspective and as mapped in the results,
the field possesses many characteristics that encourage flow
states in its thought leaders. In the results (earlier chapter),
thought leader responses were mapped to the conditions of flow
(Csikzentmihalyi, 2003). In addition, many aspects of the field
have been identified by thought leaders as being the objects
of their passion. I have also noted in the literature review
that passion engenders flow. From these observations can it be
concluded that KM thought leaders work in flow states? No, because
only the thought leaders can provide that information. However,
it is reasonable to conclude that there are many indicators raising
the likelihood that thought leaders working in the knowledge
management field frequently operate in the flow state. In fact,
it may be that working in flow states reinforces their passion.
This connection suggests the potential for further research and
study as we seek to more fully connect our organizations and
workers in a knowledge age. Further reflections on flow and autotelic
work are included below as we take a closer look at the field.
Figure
17: Thought leaders operating at the intersection of self and
humanity.
Back
to top
A
Closer Look at the Field
When
introducing this study, I reflected on the cognitive, tangible
field of KM, with pragmatic actions coupled with intellectual
theoretical directions, and its relationship with passion, both
emotional and intangible. I forwarded the belief that there
is a strong emotion-a passion, an excitement-that emerges in
thought leaders of knowledge management, and grows, as there
is recognition of something greater. This has clearly been
supported by the response. I further queried, in terms of KM
what are the ideas that grab hold of us and push us beyond a
job, beyond our organizations to try and make a difference in
ourselves, our organizations and the world?
I
explored the aspects, looked at the nature of thought leader
passion and the relationship of thought leaders and those aspects.
Now I move beyond the direct results of the study, tap into intuition
based on a myriad of life experiences including 30 years of professional
experience (more than ten years in the field of knowledge management),
a rich set of past and present relationships and a full belief
and value set, all partnering with an aging body and (for the
most part) a learning mind. Engaging all of this, what new ways
of looking at and thinking about this field are suggested by
this study?
About
KM Thought Leaders
Thought
leaders create, learn, enhance and help others understand and
apply KM to their organizations to achieve high performance.
They write books, publish papers, give presentations at conferences,
teach, consult with clients, and do original thinking and research.
Although the interviews covered specific questions, a sense of
thought leader perspectives can be gained by considering what
they did not say as well as what they did say. For example,
consistent with my own experience in the field, other than some
differences in approach, there were a very small number of negative
remarks (by two responders) from thought leaders about other
thought leaders, and minimal mention of competition (once again,
two responders). At the same time, there was considerable praise
for the work of other thought leaders, even to the point that
82% of those interviewed cited at least one other participant
in this study as a thought leader they look to for new ideas.
In addition, the discussion around networks and developing ideas
surfaced mentoring relationships and thought leader idea partnering
in both formal and informal relationships across the field. Several
thought leaders voiced their appreciation of other thought leaders
and practitioners in the field who help them learn and create
new ideas through dialogue and other interactions. This collaborative
approach to developing and sharing new ideas has moved the field
to a focus on intellectual capital and social capital which is
clearly overriding earlier concerns regarding the dominance of
technology. Those responders who discussed the KM life cycle
in terms of a new focus on people, and those who indicated a
rebirth appear to have recognized the morphing character of the
field.
Grinding
another pair of lenses.
Another way of understanding the effect of KM on thought leaders
is to consider the response in terms of the four sources of energy
that come from working with knowledge and people: cognitive,
experiential, social and spiritual. From the cognitive aspect,
thought leaders solve difficult problems, create and answer questions,
generate new ideas, work across multiple disciplines, learn,
and increase their own knowledge. From the experiential aspect
they gain new insights, satisfy a hunger for learning and personal
growth, and get pleasure from helping others to make a difference.
They also enjoy recognition and fulfillment from publishing,
lecturing, teaching and collaborating with others. Socially,
thought leaders get rewards from networking, developing relationships,
sharing knowledge, working in communities of practice and interest,
and traveling and meeting people from around the world. Spiritually,
they tap into the energy of creativity, help others to learn
and grow, and in the process develop new perspectives and personal
awareness which they share, thereby moving the world a small
step toward the greater good. Along with this comes a personal
sense of responsibility relating to how knowledge is used and
what underlying values guide its application, that is, with the
thrill of birthing a new idea comes the parental feelings of
responsibility for its future and how it is used by others.
Such
activities as the above, coupled with the context and nature
of the KM field, help us understand the sources and intensity
of thought leader passion for their work and the field. Knowledge,
understanding, sense-making and interpreting the world around
us underpin the basic nature of the human species-it is what
makes us human. Knowledge management, because its content lies
so close to our fundamental nature as human beings, contains
the seeds for passion itself, whether we are involved with routine
accomplishments or higher-level personal activities that lead
to Maslow's self-fulfillment. As Zohar and Marshall suggested,
"Knowledge and understanding are passionate things which
cause us to engage deeply with the world around or within us."
(Zohar & Marshall, 2000, p. 240) To people who follow the
path of knowledge, KM provides an ideal challenge, giving them
the opportunity to simultaneously engage deeply with their colleagues,
their world and their inner self.
Back
to top
About
Knowledge and Knowledge Management
Knowledge
management is an embryonic field that gives visibility and focus
to an awareness and appreciation of knowledge. Knowledge, the
foundational concept, is best understood as the capacity to take
effective action. Such capacity requires information, sense-making,
understanding, context, theories, rules, insights, intuition
and judgment. However, KM primarily works with meta-knowledge
or knowledge about knowledge. It also is concerned with people,
organizations, technology, networks and knowledge about knowledge
processes. Finally, it is concerned with knowledge about designing,
developing, leading, managing and changing organizations to improve
their performance in a knowledge economy.
Knowledge
management has a name problem. Twenty-four of the thought leaders
interviewed (71%) did not like the term knowledge management.
This concern generally comes from the industrial age interpretation
of management as control coupled with a strong belief that it
is not possible for an organization to control knowledge because
it exists only in the human mind. Despite this dislike for the
label, thought leaders used the term 1,701 times during the course
of the 34 interviews. This is: (a) because the words are used
widely throughout the community and the general interpretation
is that it represents a field of activities related to knowledge
and organizations; (b) because it is difficult to find another
term that denotes the same group of philosophies and activities;
and (c) because the interviewer used this term as a generic term
when it was acceptable to the thought leader being interviewed,
so it was natural for the interviewee to respond in like manner.
While
the term knowledge management (KM) might be considered a useful
bridging term left over from the industrial age psyche of most
bureaucratic organizations, it was also a term before its time.
As it became popular through the early and mid 90's, it was linked,
particularly in the United States, to information technology
(IT), and vendors rapidly applied the label to their new systems
in an effort to gain competitive advantage. At the same time,
thought leaders at every level of organizations in the U.S.,
and increasingly abroad, struggled to figure out what this focus
on knowledge really meant to organizations. Thus, a new way of
thinking about knowledge and organizations was emerging even
as the first hype of KM and its tight relationship to IT began
to dissipate. Little wonder that many thought leaders who entered
the field before and during this turbulent time tried to separate
themselves-and the thoughts that were becoming a new way of life
for them-from the industrial age concept of management via control.
It was and is clear that an organization cannot manage/control
knowledge.
The
goal of KM is to enhance human and organizational performance
through the creation, sharing and application of knowledge. But
as evidenced by the thought leader responses, a focus on knowledge
management for the individual is just beginning to emerge.
Using Edvinsson's favorite expression, "ah ha!" (representing
an insight), individuals can manage their own knowledge, just
as communities (people) can manage the social phenomenon of creating
new knowledge. With this recent focus on KM for individuals,
the term knowledge management has finally come into a time and
place where it makes sense.
While
I entered this study fully determined to henceforth use the term
"knowledge strategies," I have now reached a comfort
level with the term knowledge management, and an understanding
that this is where we were headed from the beginning, each and
every one of us, as individuals learning to manage our own knowledge
for the good of ourselves, learning to work with others to manage
our knowledge in groups for the good of our organizations, and
learning to connect and share internationally to manage our knowledge
for the good of our world.
The
Nature of the Field
Knowledge
management is a perspective, a movement, a field (not a discipline)
with values and value. While the interviews did not directly
address the nature of knowledge management, listening to the
thought leaders describe their work and perspectives on the field
led to patterns and insights into the nature of the field itself.
It is this nature above all that allows-and encourages-the activities
and feelings that excite passion in thought leader's feelings
and attitudes about their work.
The
KM field is inclusive, open minded, and encourages diversity
and new ideas.
KM as a field is open and inclusive, and appears to offer something
for everyone. There are worldwide activities, minimal disruptive
politics, and a sponginess or softness in its texture. The diversity
of ideas, theories and solutions emerging do not seem to be in
competition with each other rather they represent a library of
possibilities available to a kaleidoscope of customers, offering
the opportunity for widespread participation and contribution
from many individuals, cultures, and nations. Such diversity
of ideas and possibilities is fertile ground for thought leaders,
and KM provides them with an open learning and sharing environment,
challenges to their creativity and good feedback.
Thought
leaders identified a number of challenges that gave them energy
and excitement. These challenges ranged from changing traditional
power structures in organizations, to eliminating stovepipes,
to the lost opportunity cost of not learning and becoming smarter,
to inverting the formal/informal organizational cultures. Other
challenges included not getting stuck in a KM rut, applying KM
to individuals, balancing recognition with the public good, and
the difficulty of learning a new set of behaviors. These challenges
provide a sample of the issues facing KM thought leaders and
demonstrate their affinity for meeting challenges and their passion
for learning and solving problems.
As
the scope of KM continues to expand world-wide, there is considerable
opportunity for new entry into the field at every level, both
internal and external to organizational structures. KM thought
leaders often emerge from within organizations since from this
position they come into the field with an understanding of the
knowledge of the organization they serve. So while there is also
opportunity for consultants to share their knowledge about knowledge
and KM from an external position, there is a need for close partnering
with internal thought leaders who understand the knowledge of
the organization. Additionally, this opportunity exists at all
levels of organizations.
It
is notable that one fourth of the thought leaders interviewed
for this study were women. This is not an anomaly of the field;
in fact, many of the KM leaders emerging in organizations are
women. Recall that major management movements such as total quality
management and business process reengineering each had a primary
guru in the lead. For total quality management that was Edward
Deming; for business process reengineering it was Michael Hammer.
These individuals were clearly out in front forging the paths.
Now, who would we say forged the knowledge management path? There
was not a single guru, nor was it a primarily male-driven management
movement. A number of early thought leaders were included in
our study; certainly, Debra Amidon, Lief Edvinsson, Tom Stewart,
Juanita Brown, Karl-Erik Sveiby, Karl Wiig, and so many others
whose names and ideas are very familiar to many working in the
knowledge management field.
What
is different about this management field? There is wide recognition
of the value of characteristics in the field of knowledge management
that are generally assumed as characteristics more common to
females than males. This is consistent with the movement of organizations
toward valuing intellectual capital-and the sharing of knowledge-which
moves the management focus away from positional authority to
knowledge-centric relational collaboration. These characteristics
suggest opportunities for women to significantly contribute to
and impact the field.
KM
is self-referential, with reinforcing feedback loops. The KM
field has the unusual and interesting property of being self-referential
with respect to its own practitioners. The nature of the thought
leader's work and the processes involved in sharing that work
with others are the same as the content of the KM field itself.
All three of these involve learning, creating, sharing and applying
knowledge. This self-referencing acts as a regenerative feedback
loop in which the results of thought leader's work impacts organizations
and other workers which then reinforces the thought leader's
learning, knowledge, social interaction and capacity to share
further work.
This
aspect of KM provides multiple ways in which thought leaders
become passionate about their work. For example, in helping organizations
learn to share their knowledge, thought leaders learn how to
share their own knowledge as well. Another example would be Tom
Davenport's description of how his work on attention affected
his personal and professional life. Thought leaders are energized
not only by their results but also by the learning and practice
they gain in the process of achieving results. Being creative,
finding new insights, satisfying curiosity, developing different
perspectives, and experiencing productive interactions with others
fall within this feedback frame that produces strong, personal
feelings about the work, the field and its practitioners. Strong
feelings that, according to those interviewed, lead to passion.
The
KM field encourages autotelic work or flow. Another aspect of KM introduced
earlier in this discussion is its inherent ability to offer thought
leaders environments and situations that result in autotelic
work or flow experiences. This current of energy and moments
of high enjoyment, considered over time, is very close to what
we have identified as passion in terms of thought leader response.
While flow is most often referred to as a flow state, lasting
for some nominal time period, the KM field itself and its content
supports many of the conditions needed for flow. From the interviews
one finds patterns that support a number of Csikszentmihalyi's
conditions. For example, the highest goals of KM are clear, and
through networks, conversations, communities and symposia there
is relatively fast feedback. Thought leaders are in control of
their work, choose their own specific goals, receive feedback
from workers (and other thought leaders) in the field, are up
to the tasks they set for themselves, and there is a widespread
(but not universal) pattern of humbleness. The results of their
work validate their ability to concentrate, and for much of their
work they must be "in the present" to be effective,
although the interviews did not address any sense of time. Overall,
the thought leaders get a great deal of satisfaction from their
work and feel that it is very beneficial to them personally as
well as to organizations and society as a whole.
From
interview responses, I find that the thought leaders interviewed
frequently touched on their feelings and the excitement that
came from learning, creating knowledge, helping others, and experiencing
the awareness of "what it means to be alive" or "livingness."
Many of the thought leaders interviewed emanate the excitement
of being able to help individuals, organizations, and nations-and
perhaps mankind-to help them learn, grow and make a difference.
The foundation of KM lies at the core of humanity, and this alone
creates passion in many. The intent of this discussion is to
propose that for the thought leaders actually engaged in the
field of KM, very much a model of scholar practitioners, there
is a repetitive or long-term state of flow, that is, the autotelic
work experience. This offers a potential area of further study.
KM
is a complex adaptive system with many possibilities and opportunities. In his
discussion on complexity, Ralph Stacey says that the science
of complexity considers the basic properties of nonlinear-feedback
networks and particularly of complex adaptive networks. Specifically,
he believes that complex adaptive systems "consist of a
number of components, or agents, that interact with each other
according to sets of rules that require them to examine and respond
to each others behavior in order to improve their behavior and
thus the behavior of the system they comprise" (Stacey,
1996, p. 10). KM does not have a single leader or guru as was
evident in earlier management initiatives such as TQM and BPR.
Because of this it does not have a narrow objective, a specified
process, or a restricted domain of interest. Being flexible and
robust, the field can adapt to-and address-issues and opportunities
without being constrained by rigid practices or unquestioned
edicts. Aided by the breadth and scope of the field and the variety
of potential applications, thought leaders are free from imitation
and constraints, relatively independent on their focus while
simultaneously interdependent in terms of learning and creating
new knowledge, pursuing many different subjects that can be brought
together to focus on meta-knowledge and its application to individual
and organizational performance. Leadership is distributed, self-organizing,
collaborative, and natural-just as many KM activities such as
knowledge sharing, communities of practice, and networking are.
All of these aspects encourage energy and passion in thought
leaders.
This
diversity permits continuous learning and adapting to local needs
and contexts as various methods and approaches are tested and
evaluated. As Battram said, "complex behavior need not have
a complex explanation, and order will emerge from 'self-organization'."
(Battram, 1996, p. 125) Considering the "self-organization"
in the field of knowledge management, we can see that the subject
matter (knowledge) and its corollary (learning), coupled with
the objectives of improving organizational performance, provide
a direction and focus for the field without constraining it.
There are no rigid rules, dictums and mandatory processes. In
fact, the field has emerged and is continuously emerging rather
than being designed or planned. This emergence has come from
many people, including thought leaders and organizational practitioners,
working individually and through networks in a relatively self-consistent
progressive learning path. Thought leaders feel that they are
part of a worthy endeavor that has the freedom and potential
to make significant contributions to individuals, organizations
and society. As the KM field adapts to the needs of individuals,
organizations and the world at large, it will likely continue
to take on many forms and functions, as any surviving complex
adaptive system does. In other words, the direction and nature
of this field will "emerge" over time. Such emergent
phenomenon are natural properties of a complex adaptive system.
John Casti noted that complex systems often display strange,
surprising and counter-intuitive behavior.
More
often than not, this surprising behavior is attributable to a
phenomenon termed emergence, which is just a system-theoretic
jargon for an overall system behavior that comes out of the interaction
of many participants-behavior that cannot be predicted or even
envisioned from a knowledge of what each component of the system
does in isolation. (Casti, 1997, p. 82)
The
implications of recognizing knowledge management as a complex
adaptive system are varied. First, constraining the field as
a discipline would both limit and control its potential-offering
limited opportunity for thought leading. Second, the flexibility,
self-organization and empowerment available to thought leaders
and others allow for much innovation and trial and error implementation.
The field and its thought leaders can easily change directions,
adapt to new surprises and fill opportunities. This gives them
ownership and internal rewards that generate loyalty and passion.
Knowledge itself
is an emergent phenomenon. There is no direct cause and effect
relationship between information and knowledge, rather it is
the interaction among many ideas, concepts and patterns of thought
that create knowledge. These can be any combination of information,
experience, environment, need, intuition, feelings, processes,
and so forth. So the creation of knowledge is an emergent process
in a complex patterned system, entangling itself with goals and
objectives and issues and context and other such information.
Looking at knowledge in this light surfaces the importance of
living networks-networks that bring people together to create,
learn and help each other. This importance is recognized by the
thought leaders interviewed, and indeed the concept of living
networks is currently emerging as a core focus area of the field.
As
a complex adaptive system, KM can be expected to continue morphing
as the environment changes, supporting the claim that it will
be around for many years to come. Several thought leaders pointed
out that knowledge was the best solution to the immediate and
future problems of organizations and the world. The amount of
knowledge in the world will increase with the complexity of the
world in a reinforcing loop. While the implications are that
there will be a greater need for KM in order to gain competitive
advantage in an increasingly knowledge-centric world, there are
also indications of greater opportunity. Should we choose to
grind another pair of lenses and view global connectivity from
a different perspective, increased knowledge in a connected world
built on interdependent relationships offers the opportunity
to create win-win situations where competition no longer has
a role to play. It is this potential that may truly change the
role of organizations in the global market.
Back
to top
The
global aspect of KM.
Today KM is becoming a global field of inquiry and practice that
reaches to the heart of its practitioners. Dealing with meta-knowledge,
learning, relationships, ideas, methods, processes and meaning,
it helps individuals and organizations improve their capacity
to perform well by fostering growth, collaboration, social interaction
and the fundamental human values of honesty, integrity, sharing
and trust. While these values are essential for knowledge creation,
sharing and application in organizations, they are also the values
that stimulate growth and achievement in individuals and even
nations.
KM
presses for a workplace where people can work together, learn
from each other, grow professionally and become capable of adapting
and responding to the challenges of the modern world, that is,
the organization as a living system built around people. As our
organizations embrace this new way of being, the potential and
scope of KM ranges from individuals to organizations to enterprises
to nations to global. Many underdeveloped nations are already
picking up on KM's potential value and accelerating their entry
into the knowledge world by creating value through intangibles
that move at the speed of light. This focus on knowledge and
KM helps both organizations and nations recognize and maximize
the value of their internal knowledge and capacity to learn to
build stronger organizations. With third world countries now
open and available to global markets but with limited natural
land resources, the concerted effort to develop their natural
mental resources provides the opportunity not only to survive,
but to thrive in a world economy. This is now occurring. Many
other countries have become interested in KM and are using it
to accelerate their development and movement into the new world
where intangibles are becoming more important and valuable than
products. Examples include Spain, Mexico, Finland, Sweden, Norway,
Australia, Poland, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Canada, Great Britain,
France, Germany, South Africa, South Korea, India, Malaysia,
and Japan. Knowledge management is becoming global through networks
of individual researchers, authors and practitioners who can
share information and knowledge worldwide. Many thought leaders
offer much of their thinking to the world via Internet websites.
The
potential offered by this aspect of KM is exciting to thought
leaders; 79% of those interviewed have international practices.
At the same time, this potential is threatening to those organizations
that insist on continuing operations using industrial bureaucracies
based on historical experience. This was particularly apparent
through a simple observation made by one participant who resides
abroad and works with organizations in India, China and Japan.
He shared that when he worked with these organizations as a consultant,
he goes in looking for those things that need to be sustained
in these relatively young, dynamic organizations. Unencumbered
by historic models these organizations are open to change and
in need of identifying and locking onto those things that provide
identity and direction. In contrast, consultants who work within
industrialized countries go into organizations looking for those
things that need to be-and can be-changed, that is, these
organizations come with historic precedence and mindsets coupled
to past successes that can make it very difficult to accept change.
The implication is that these new global organizations are moving
directly from an agrarian mindset into the knowledge economy,
skipping industrial age concepts and thereby accelerating their
race for global competitive advantage. Fraught with innumerable
problems and opportunities, this global situation challenges
KM thought leaders, opening the possibility for them to contribute
significantly to the greater good. What better reason to be passionate?
The
future of KM is uncertain but its potential is great. While to
date the impact of KM on the world may be small, its history
is short but vibrant and pregnant with possibilities and potentialities
for all who take knowledge, understanding, and the greater good
seriously. KM promises to fulfill-and may be able to fulfill
as it churns and changes in response to a turbulent world-a fundamental
need of individuals and organizations. This need is to make better
use of knowledge to strengthen institutions, increase the competence
of individuals and improve the value produced by both.
As
the world shrinks in space and time and marches toward intangible
value, global competition (and beyond), and the multiplication
and entanglement of living networks and artifacts, the need to
appreciate and advance knowledge will become a dominant force
for growth and survival so long as civilizations remain coherent.
Since the Greek philosophers, we have nurtured and sometimes
abused the concept of knowledge, while always seeming to make
longer-term progress. This upstart called knowledge management
may be the beginning of a renaissance of thinking, creating,
sharing and applying our greatest human asset-the ability to
observe, understand, make sense out of our environment, and act
upon our situation. This hope and uncertainty, coupled with a
potentially high payoff, presents a magnetic attraction to creative,
knowledge-loving individuals looking for ways to fulfill themselves
and to help others, a good description of the thought leaders
interviewed in this study.
Back
to top
A
Potential Follow-On Conversation: Exploring KM as an Intelligent
Complex Adaptive System
Sy,
a cognitive psychologist recognized for his ground-breaking work
on judgment and decision-making as well as creative approaches
to internal motivation, sits on one of the burgundy leather couches
of the Mountain Quest Institute, reflecting on the research results
he has just read. Across from him is Ivan, an international businessman
whose specialty is knowledge-based organizations addressing the
multicultural challenges of global business. Next to Ivan sits
Bianca, a biologist interested in the application of living systems
to organizations, and angled into an adjacent chair is Fern,
a futurist specializing in global trends at the intersection
of technology, culture, economics and management.
Sy
looks up at the others and speaks, "I am somewhat surprised-actually,
amazed is a better word-that this field, admittedly which I know
little about, can contain within itself so many of the key elements
that excite us as human beings. We all value knowledge-that's
core to being human-but the field seems to couple that knowledge
core with the characteristics of sharing and creating and acting
on knowledge that not only offer the possibility of improving
our organizations, but make each of us as individuals feel good
about our own personal growth and contribution. As Csikszentmihalyi
explains, in the West we have historically thought of ourselves
as individuals whereas Asian and African cultures see themselves
as nodes in a network of relationships (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003,
p. 169). In reading this research I got the sense that many of
the thought leaders interviewed saw themselves as nodes in a
large-perhaps global-network. Perhaps knowledge workers in knowledge
organizations also see themselves that way."
Ivan
nods, "That's an interesting perspective, Sy, howbeit speculative.
But as a global businessman my primary concern has to be how
to create businesses that live long, maintain competitive advantage
and stay profitable. Relative to those goals, I'm not sure how
well knowledge management will be able to contribute, although,
of course, intuitively I understand the importance of managing
knowledge assets. Now, something I've learned about this field
from both my experience and what I've read is its power to move
organizations away from the bureaucratic, control-oriented mindset
toward recognizing and giving individuals more freedom, influence,
and opportunity to contribute to the organization's mission and
direction. What do you think Bianca?"
"Well,
what you say certainly makes sense," Bianca responds. "But
I'd like to propose that looking at knowledge-centric organizations-those
organizations that have learned how to empower their knowledge
workers, increase innovation and at the same time maintain cohesion-they
have done very well. Birkinshaw has recently addressed this challenge
in an MIT Sloan Management Review article (Birkinshaw, 2004).
We should all be aware that there's a lot of recent work that's
being done in the area of complexity theory that relates to the
researcher's remarks that a KM organization, or more appropriately
perhaps the field of KM itself, could be considered a complex
adaptive system. For example, to meet the rapidly changing demands
of the marketplace requires both our organizations and the KM
field to continuously learn and adapt or get left behind."
Fern
breaks in. "Bianca, I think you're on track. In my work
looking at global futures I see a definite trend moving us away
from standard industrial age management and thinking toward a
much more challenging and uncertain future. I'd like to suggest
that the acronym CUCA describes this future, in the sense that
our world is one of accelerating change, rising uncertainty,
rapidly growing complexity, and increasing anxiety in response
to that change, uncertainty and complexity (Bennet & Bennet,
2004). As the research points out, information is growing exponentially
and knowledge builds on knowledge. These phenomena do not seem
to be leveling off and, frankly, I'm seriously concerned about
our ability as a species to handle this. Bianca, could you elaborate
a bit on just exactly what is a complex adaptive system? This
may be helpful in finding a way to deal with this challenging
CUCA environment."
"Sure,
Fern, I'd be happy to. The concept originated years ago in biology
in a new, closely associated field of study called general systems
theory. A complex system is one which has so many interrelated
parts that it is impossible to trace causal effects, or detail
influences or relationships. As Battram has proposed, a complex
adaptive system is not only complex but also self-organizing,
continuously learning and, of course, changing its internal structure
to adapt (Battram, 1996, p. 82)."
Ivan
interjects, "Go back for a minute-are you saying we can't
use logic and detailed information to make rational decisions?"
Sy
jumps in, "Let me answer, Ivan. Unfortunately I think you're
for the most part right, although what we think of as rational
decisions certainly still has a role in decision-making. Let's
take the field of knowledge management for example. The direction
of the field as it evolves is the result of a large number of
knowledge workers and thought leaders making rational decisions,
acting on hunches, creating new ideas and pursuing possibilities.
This is so because no one is capable of foreseeing or even understanding
the future and-as chaos theory has taught us-small changes can
sometimes lead to extraordinary results (Cohen & Stewart,
1994). In other words, the direction of the KM field emerges
from the actions, decisions, creativity and intuitive thinking
of many different individuals. But realize that we're all in
the same boat as our organizations become more knowledge-centric
and more complex. All of us have grown up from an industrial
history which has naturally led us to learn to make decisions-and
act on those decisions-from the premise that we live in a deterministic
world where the more information we have and the more rational
our thought the better our decisions. (Gigerenzer & Todd,
1999, pp. 8-9) And while certainly this is true for many areas
of our work-those areas that still function in simple cause-and-effect
environments-as Fern points out, as our milieu becomes more complex
we have to recognize that it is not possible to use only logic
and analysis."
"That's
a good point," Bianca says, "Because not only is complexity
very challenging to understand, it is essentially unpredictable
to various degrees. (Battram, 1996, p. 13) There's what is called
an emergent phenomenon in complex organizations. Examples are
culture, consciousness, and knowledge itself that arise from
multiple interactions within a complex system and take on characteristics
entirely different than the components of the system. The field
of knowledge management is undoubtedly a complex system because
there are far too many people, too many relationships, too many
ideas, and too many organizations involved to ever truly "understand"
the relationships among them and the details of what happens.
Yet, books are written, trends appear, patterns become clear,
and the overall field does have a 'cone of direction' even though
its path may appear random and is unpredictable."
Ivan
leans forward on his seat. "Bianca, are you saying that
the KM field has no leader, no strategy or direction? If that
is the case then is it simply a random group of well-meaning
people? This doesn't make sense to me."
Bianca
responds, "This self-organization occurs in many complex
adaptive systems! It just bubbles up from the large number of
interactions, relationships and goals of the many workers-or
we could add the term thought leaders-in the field. Also, recall
that knowledge itself, when coupled with learning and sharing,
forms a common bond that helps the overall field take on slowly
changing patterns. For example, the research mentioned several
emergent phenomena such as storytelling, communities of practice,
living networks and the current movement toward personal knowledge
management."
"Bianca,
does this mean that as a businessman I will no longer have control
over my organization? Not that I always feel like I'm in control,
but if I don't have control how can I be responsible for it?
Senior executives and government leaders are expected to be in
control of their organizations and accountable for them, and
now you're telling me because the future is becoming more complex,
more of this CUCA stuff, that knowledge and KM are describing
a situation in which there's no such thing as real control?"
Sy
looks at Ivan smiling. "Well it sounds like you intuitively
recognize, of course, that we as individuals are rarely in control
anyway. What's happening now, as we move toward a knowledge society,
is that organizations are moving from the highly-controlled organizations
of the early 1900s that spurred Taylorism in the auto production
lines and generations of simulated sweat shops, toward an environment
which will no longer be dominated by organizations. In other
words, in this new paradigm if organizations mimic the field
of KM and become more like complex adaptive systems, they must
scan, observe, interpret and adapt to the environment in addition
to, of course, influencing where and what they can."
Bianca
jumps in excitedly. "That is absolutely right, and this
field of knowledge management offers a good example. The field
must adapt to the needs of its customers, which are organizations
and corporations, in the sense that if it doesn't produce value
added it will have to struggle to survive, no matter how self-worthy
it is."
"And
what we have seen," Fern offers, "is a significant
movement within the field from its initial focus on technology
and information towards knowledge in terms of understanding and
the social aspects of knowledge creation as the predominate value
contributors. This is an example of its learning and adaptability."
Sy
agrees. "Yes, and that's exactly why the field of knowledge
management is moving us towards recognizing the significance
and importance of humans and individuals and learning and sharing
to create value added. It is internally and naturally evolving
in the human direction: giving the individual the freedom and
responsibility needed for success within the vision and direction
of their organization."
Bianca
softly exclaims, "Ah, ha! You have just identified a significantly
new emergent property of the field of knowledge management."
"A
question," Ivan interjects. "Does this mean that the
field will survive if it continues to offer value to its customers
while adapting to the needs of a changing world?"
Bianca
nods, "From a biological point of view, every complex adaptive
system must have energy and information coming in, and it must
be able to continuously create new ideas and change its infrastructure
to adapt to the demands of its environment. In the case of the
KM field, its energy comes from the passion of its thought leaders-and
most likely knowledge workers as well-and the human desire to
learn and understand."
Sy
jumps in, "And I think part of that passion is the opportunity
to create new ideas, processes and applications, and to better
understand the process of developing and exploring our own cognitive
limits through personal study, team collaboration and other methods
of leverage. Also, I would suggest that the field of knowledge
management has an inherent internal growth mechanism which would
aid its survival. Since knowledge builds on both exponentially
growing information and on knowledge itself, by its nature the
field of knowledge management builds upon itself. I guess that's
what is meant by the researcher saying the field is self-referential."
"That's
certainly true," Fern offers, "although the researcher
was pointing out that what thought leaders were doing themselves
as thought leaders and practitioners is exactly what they are
helping others to learn how to do. But I think this is also because
we know the explosion of technology has reduced the cost of communication,
emphasized the creation of networks, sped up transactions, and
allowed knowledge workers to confront the challenge of understanding
and dealing with complexity.
"Yes,
but recognize," Sy suggests, "that we're only at the
beginning of this transition into the age of complexity, and
frankly no one really understands how or what we as a species
need to do."
Bianca
offers, "However, this field of KM has helped awakened many
of us to the importance of continuous learning, knowledge sharing,
and understanding what's happening. This may be the beginning
of a changing world."
"Well,
from my psychologist perspective," Sy says, "I certainly
understand why autotelic work is so frequently found within the
field of KM and why the field seems to have a magnetic attraction
to many people. It both supports our own personal deep desire
for understanding and growing as well as being able to contribute
to the broader good of organizations and families, and even the
greater good."
"If
it can do all that," Ivan says excitedly, "and in addition
create a new value proposition which improves our economy, our
affluence level, and helps developing countries have a better
standard of living, then this field should be recognized for
its potential."
Sy
laughs. "Well, I don't disagree, except to add that it's
really people who will do all that, howbeit people who are both
more knowledgeable and connected through living networks, and
people who are supported by everything this field pushes us to
focus on. So our focus is not so much on people as assets, but
people as investors, investing time, energy and intelligence"
(Stewart, 2001, p.252).
Fern,
who has been listening carefully, reflects on the dialogue before
saying, "Ivan, I don't know whether you're aware of it,
but some developing countries are already using the field to
leapfrog developed countries by bypassing industrial development
and moving directly into the knowledge world. First of all, besides
needing natural land resources, industrialization takes a great
deal of capital and time, and developing countries don't have
much of either. But because many people around the world have
access to satellites, Internet, cell phones, and so forth, they
are aware of what other countries have. This creates intense
pressures within developing countries to improve their standard
of living."
"Now
that you point that out, Fern," Bianca responds, "perhaps
the field of KM as a complex adaptive system is spreading its
wings far enough to potentially become a world-wide phenomenon."
"That's
an interesting possibility," Sy says. "I do know that
if we had world-wide communication and recognition of the importance
of learning, sharing and innovation that the knowledge management
field promotes, then technology coupled with living networks
could help the world become closer and more collaborative rather
than so competitive and divisive. In our multinational enterprises
we've already recognized that our exposure to a wider variety
of customers, competitors and technologies stimulate innovation
by helping us sense and respond to a diverse array of environmental
signals. Then, we have the ability to tap into the resources
and capabilities of a rich knowledge-creating network. That means
better responses to choose from, and the ability to proliferate
certain innovations (Gupta & Westney, 2003). Living networks
may well move us toward a win-win world."
"Living
networks would certainly change the global business arena,"
Ivan notes.
"What
a fascinating possibility," Fern suggests, "that something
as seemingly benign as the field of knowledge management could
become significant as a world movement."
"Well,
I can tell you this," Bianca responds, "historically
very few living organisms have been able to survive the test
of evolution unless they were complex adaptive organisms. As
we all know, Darwin learned that many years ago" (Wilson,
1998, p. 190).
"But
aren't we as individuals intelligent complex adaptive organizations?"
Sy poses with a smile. "So that hopefully when we start
working together that intelligence connected by need and a willingness
to learn and share can do better than any other living organisms."
Fern
sighs, "Did you notice that the researcher applies the word
intelligent to the field? Let me confirm that language."
She flips through the pages in front of her. "Yes, the researcher
does say that the field of knowledge management is an intelligent
complex adaptive system."
Sy
responds, "I'm not really sure how a field could be intelligent-other
than the sum of the individual actions and contributions by its
thought leaders and workers are connected sufficiently through
communications and the sharing of understanding such that there
can emerge a mode of behavior and an intention of force which
moves the field in a direction for its survival and contribution."
Thinking
carefully, Bianca responds, "That's a fascinating idea,
Sy. There is a concept called 'swarm intelligence' that comes
from the amazing ability of ants and some other insects to change
their individual behavior when needed so that the swarm, as a
whole, adapts to, and takes advantage of changes in its environment.
'Perhaps the most powerful insight from swarm intelligence is
that complex collective behavior can emerge from individuals
following simple rules' (Bonabeau & Meyer, 2001)."
"You
know the more I reflect on this field," Ivan mutters, "the
more important I think it may become in all of our futures."
Fern
responds quickly, "I know from my work viewpoint I'm going
to follow this with intense interest, and do some serious study
to understand it better."
"That's
a task that it would behoove all of us to take on," Sy states
emphatically.
"Yes,
I agree," Bianca says, "because I think each of us
with our own special expertise-and many other people looking
at the field from their own experiential viewpoint and areas
of interest and work-will help improve our collective understanding
of what's going on, what we need to do, and the possibilities
for the future."
"Isn't
that the concept of a living network?" Ivan asks.
Links
See
full dissertation at www.mountainquestinstitute.com for References.
Back
to top
|
