Replying to Dori Digenti in LO23912 --
Dori, who feels compelled to jump in to the tacit-explicit thread asks why
we in the West are hung up on making the tacit explicit. She [I assume
Dori is a feminine name] answers her own question as follows:
>Because if we could do this successfully, we can: put it in books and
>databases, make a course about it, measure it (a whole other
>conversation), sell it, replicate it, and do other interesting things with it.
She goes on to ask a second question:
>Why don't we spend more time, money, theoreticalenergy, etc., on exploring
>the transmission of tacit knowledge?
And she answers this one with some superficial explanations others are
likely to provide and then delves for a deeper answer as follows:
>I think the deeper explanation is that tacit-to-tacit transmission of
>knowledge is wholly relationship based. And that is a threat to our
>"deep-seated cultural learning" (this term from Sara Keck at Pace Univ.),
>which tells us that relationships in business are transactional, what the
>Japanese call "dry" as opposed to "wet." In short, what I'm saying is that
>it may be worthwhile to look at
>why we focus so much on the tacit-to-explicit dimension. I feel that we
>won't get to the depths of organizational learning unless we develop these
>relationship-based learning structures.
For what it's worth, Dori, I think you've touched on at least a couple of
important points. Let me pick a nit first.
I don't think tacit knowledge is "transmitted" in the literal sense of
something being conveyed from one person to another. Instead, I prefer to
think of tacit knowledge as existing uniquely in one person as an aspect,
quality or characteristic of that person. (Pushed, I would say it is
something we attribute to each other.) Consider the classic case of
master and apprentice. The master may be said to possess certain
know-how, some of which is tacit knowledge. The apprentice, over time,
learns to behave in similar ways, produce similar products and/or achieve
similar outcomes, perhaps even good enough to equal or excel those of the
master. Although we are apt to say that the master's tacit knowledge was
transmitted or transferred or communicated to the apprentice, I take that
as a figure of speech and a misleading one at that. What I think actually
happens is that the apprentice learns and, as a result of learning,
develops a capacity for action very similar to that of the master. But,
technically speaking, the master's tacit knowledge was not transmitted or
transferred to the apprentice. That is merely a figure of speech used in
accounting for the apprentice's new-found capability.
So, in the last analysis, one of the reasons I think we in the West are so
fixated on making tacit knowledge explicit and on the transmission of
tacit knowledge is that we don't want to face up to the fact that
knowledge, in the sense that that word refers to an individual human
being's state of knowing, is a uniquely individual phenomenon.
Although we can't stick a knowledge needle in each other and draw out our
knowledge the way we do blood, we can learn from one another. We learn
through observation, reflection, experimentation, imitation and a whole
bunch of other ways. As you point out, and as the Japanese seem to know,
that kind of learning requires purposive interactions over time: a
relationship. Whether it is between master and apprentice, mentor and
protege, tutor and student, parent and child, leader and follower or boss
and subordinate is immaterial. The notion that helping someone else learn
requires a relationship instead of a repertoire known as teaching or
instructing or training is a scary proposition for some people. It also
means that people aren't simply programmable work machines.
In terms of the nature and purpose of this list, it means that one central
aspect of a learning organization would have to be the quality of the
relationships between and among people. This, in turn, means that
managers and executives would have to pay attention to this factor. That,
I suspect, is a challenge.
--Fred Nickols The Distance Consulting Company "Assistance at A Distance" http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.