Replying to LO30397 --
Dear Mark, dear readers,
Thank you for your reply. First my excuses for not replying sooner, after
my holiday as my mail box was swamped by spam and i haven't noticed your
kind reply earlier.
Mark W. McElroy wrote (replying to LO30380):
>>>Jan, I'm not sure why you think we disagree here. The 'Knowledge Life
>>>Cycle' framework depicted in the article (and repeatedly in my book) is
>>>nothing if not a view of precisely the social processes you speak of. I
>>>believe I'm quite clear about my commitment to that view.
I replied:
>>I think that knowledge needs no life cycle when you're talking about
>>social processes. ... What interest me is
>>why and how we somehow need to convince others that this world needs
>>management (a leader, a God) and fail to prove that this works.
And you answered:
>Jan, I strongly recommend that you listen to what I am saying and not to
>the words you're putting in my mouth. This business of needing to manage
>knowledge is your hang-up, not mine. I am now quite convinced that you
>did not actually read what I wrote. Instead, you have decided to paint me
>with the same brush that you seem to think KM deserves in all of its
>forms. Your prejudice is overwhelming.
I admit to it all. I agree with you, i only browsed through what you said
- although i didn't mean to put words in your mouth you didn't say. I'm
aware i only listen to my own words - and perhaps not even that - and that
i do have a prejudice against KM. So any New KM will meet with my: "Hello,
new New Speak!". However i do feel trapped now. I do think that you're a
sincere, kind person and that you want to improve this world. Just like
me. In this endeavour, understanding KM - and New KM - seems essential to
me. Perhaps starting out with expressing prejudices about KM might be a
bit awkward, but i do want to play the ball and not the man. I'm sorry if
i overwhelmed you. This might be a result from to the overwhelming
importance some organizations attribute to KM and my personal hang-up. I'm
sure you'll understand that and i assume that your response proves you do
not think i'm lost yet. Thank you.
>You speak of the foolishness of KM trying to 'manage' knowledge. I agree.
>I even use the counter-term 'un-managing knowledge' to express my
>discontent. But you ignore that. I also speak in terms of restoring the
>conditions in organizations in which knowledge can freely form and flow,
>and yet I suppose you criticize me for that too. There's no pleasing you,
>I guess.
Well, this answer is pleasing me. And i already admitted that you're right
in that i didn't read your contribution completely. I'll do so later.
However, "un-managing knowledge" is not what i seek in response to the
foolishness - did i use that word? - of KM. I want to make a lateral move
and leave the straight line between managing and un-managing knowledge.
For me - my hang-up - this still implies that there are at least two
entities here: a manager and a managed. I'm looking in the direction of
something like "self managing knowledge".
>Next you say that the idea of life cycles is suspect, specious, or in some
>other way corrupt. Get real, will you. When's the last time you noticed
>the weather, or birth and death? Or the emergence of problems and the
>solutions that follow them, only to be followed by new problems and the
>solutions that follow them?
I do not want you to catch you on words - at least - it is not my
intention, but i have to use words. I do not want to imply that i'm
suspecting you of anything but being sincere or that your ideas are
corrupt. In reality NOTHING is cyclic and and the same time EVERYTHING can
be caught in cycle. Sure, life's a cycle, but my person is not being
recycled. And rain follows sunshine as sun follows night, but no man has
stepped into the same shower twice. When thinking we develop models, of
the world, of ourselves. Discovering laws and cycles is part of it.
Knowledge. But do not eat the menu.
Solutions and problems have - in our times - become an intangible web, a
Gordian knot, a global maze. We - people - are unable to make progress any
more, because - again in my view - all problems have been solved.
Becoming richer or stronger or more powerful than your neighbour is - in
my opinion - not a real problem. These symptoms are a consequence of our
solution to the problem of survival. (and if everything is cyclical, this
isn't a problem isn't it?). The only "problem" is the assumption that we
can or/and must manage our situation or/and that the situation is being
managed by some supreme being. I also think - prejudisioulsy - that the
concept of God is just a projection of our hang-up with management.
>You seem to adhere to some kind of misologism. Let's just dispose of our
>entire capacity for observation, reason, and criticism, shall we?
I do not know what misologism is, but i'm aware that our capacity for
observation, reason and criticism is limited. I do not want to imply that
we should discard them - au contraire - we should observe our reasoning
critically - as you do. So i agree with the implication of your "shall
we?", we won't dispose of them.
>>My personal cycle of knowledge in organizations is:
>>--+--> communicating <-- + --> trusting <-- + --> co-operating <-- + -->
>>committing <--+-- (+ = positively coupled: when communicating improves,
>>trust grows but when communicating declines, trust gets less etc.).
>>
>
>Great, but what triggers all of this?
Nothing, these are cycles without beginning, without end, ever changing
and containing no inherent knowledge. It is just a model trying to model a
dynamic situation.
>And how do we know whether or not
>what's being communicated is true or false?
Communicating is both a process and has content. The content can be true,
false or undecided. I merely want to state the processes of communicating
(up to and including behaving, not only words. And here we have another
"problem": in words i can say things that are true or not (digitally) but
in behaving i can only behave (analogous). I can not not behave. I want to
include this kind of communicating too).
>And when does your "personal
>cycle" (I see now that you see fit to have one) come into play?
Always (I only fit in my own cycles, ;-) )
>Who gets
>to participate in it?
Everybody - there are no limits to communicating, trusting, committing and
co-operating.
>And how do we deal with the fact that not everyone
>does in organizations, thanks to the unequal distribution of power that
>prevails in modern corporations?
Bingo! I do not know if the distribution of power is the (most important)
source of people not communicating; it could be the other way around: one
should use the unequal distribution of power to promote better
communicating (trusting etc.). Also the unequal distribution might be a
consequence of poor communicating. This would be a self generating process
of Success to the Successful. I would suggest that communicating is such a
new - evolutionary speaking - phenomena that we're only starting to learn
how to use this great instrument. So my way of dealing is starting to
communicate. Begin at the beginning: start communicating.
>And what about the purpose of learning
>and the role that it plays in problem solving?
Again, my prejudice takes over: except for surviving, there are no real
problems and learning has taught us how to survive the group and the
family. Learning - and i think you love to learn - had as purpose
surviving. We had a short period were learning had the purpose of learning
itself and i'm sure that time will come again. But nowadays learning had
become being taught - and nobody wants to be taught. I'm deeply influenced
by Chris Argyris paradox of learning:
- learning with the purpose of controlling behaviour inhibits
learning -
Here lies the root of my suspicion of KM (and LO and the 7S-model and the
Business Balanced Score Card and ....what have you ): what it the
intention, the purpose, the goal or the aim of learning. Do we want people
to change their behaviour (with a certain purpose) or do we want to make
people aware of their behaviour and offer them a choice? Part of the
problem is the fact that in the beginning people (children) do have to
depend on others and we do have to learn behaviour. Often i read here
about the purity of the learning of children. Off course: that is learning
for its own sake. And most of the schools - with the best intentions -
seem to destroy this kind of learning. Because one needs to control the
behaviour of children. True rebels without a cause.
I'm afraid that - with the best of intentions - we do not make people
stronger, smarter, wiser. We've become grown-ups but not adults. And make
no mistake about it: i do the same.
>Where is problem solving
>in your scheme of things?
Problem solving is "behind the schemes". It is the contents of the
communicating. Problem solving invented communicating - again, my stand
point - and therefore i experience our language as mostly being oriented
on problem solving and control ("managed") biassed.
>>Knowledge would appear in four different shapes - or flavours - :
>>communicating or know who, trusting or know what, co-operating or know
>>why and committing or know how. The know how and know what can easily be
>>made explicit; the know who and know why will develop over time.
>
>Communication is language, not knowledge; trusting is an attitude, not
>knowledge; co-operation is a behaviour, not knowledge; commitment is also a
>behaviour, not knowledge. Knowledge lies behind these things, and is not
>the SAME AS them. I find your typology to be confused and ad hoc.
OK, confused. Hmmm. Good. I suppose that confusion is not bad. Stay
confused, how does it feel? Good, not good? Were is the feeling located?
How large is it?
I agree with you: communicating - please mind the verb - trusting,
committing and co-operating are all aspects of behaving. But i think:
"all knowing is behaving". Knowledge is behaviour, there is no behaviour
without knowledge and vice versa. So now it becomes clear to me what the
entanglement is: learning --> knowledge --> purpose --> controlling -->
behaviour.
So the paradox reads: "KM aimed at controlling behaviour inhibits KM".
New or not. Is New Knowledge Management aimed at generating knowledge for
its own sake? Is NKM a liberating movement trying to get people to think,
judge, know for themselves? Does NKM want to solve a problem because
problem solving is fun? Is NKM a game to play a game to win or to play?
Does NKM wait for people to show were New Knowledge Management might run
ashore? I like this thread because i want to understand knowledge
management, understanding KM will set me free. Understanding KM, mind you,
not KM.
>>Perhaps we should divide knowledge in two parts: the knowledge we know
>>and the knowledge we do not know. The first part can be "managed",
>>although i would prefer "shared". The latter - the largest part - is
>>beyond management but is already shared. I think it was Popper who wrote
>>that we differ in the bits we know, but that we're equal in amount of
>>things we do not know. Some knowledge can be made explicit - and this is
>>always knowledge we know, this is the know in knowledge. Some knowledge
>>cannot be made explicit - either because we're as yet unaware on how to
>>make it explicit or because it is inherently implicit. This is the knew
>>in knwewledge. As we gradually develop more and more knowledge we might
>>think that all knowledge can be made explicit.
>
>This is all very neat, but it fails to (a) address the problem of how we
>know anything, and (b) assumes that all knowledge is subjective.
For me that is one and the same problem and it is the problem i want to
address - thanks for showing it so clearly. It occurs to me now that
knowledge is about self management. There is a hidden loop. KM tries to
communicate two things at the same time: the knowledge itself and that the
knowledge is true. It denies - or tries to deny, or wants to deny, or just
ignores for certain reasons- that knowledge is also partly subjective and
that we might have a choice in what part is and what isn't subjective.
>This is
>all a step backwards, not forward.
Well, it will be obvious that i cannot agree with this. Perhaps you're
rhetorically right and i wrote it somewhat clumsy. But to know that
knowledge is both subjective and objective and that there is a problem of
knowing anything is a step forward. Knowledge might be just an opinion,
like the "Earth is the centre of the universe" or "all life is evolution"
or "..." etc. Perhaps the NKM seeks to share messages ("knowledge")
together with a script on how a person can verify this message and learn
something about him or herself.
>Your approach to knowledge is to
>conveniently side-step the question of truth versus falsity.
Yes i do. I do think that knowledge goes further than truth or false.
Knowing - i use this word on purpose - means for me also an awareness of
the processes in use to establish true-ness and/or false-ness including
the option that both or neither might apply.
>You want us
>to say that we "know" something on faith, and that whatever you decide we
>express as explicit must be true because we say it is.
No i do not. I want everybody to think for hirself. I only want you to
say that something is "known based on faith" or "this is true because i
say so" when this is the case. And i invite everybody to think if they
agree or not.
>Your approach to
>knowledge therefore leaves us devoid of any distinction between
>information and knowledge, and that is precisely why your approach and
>philosophy to the subject fails on its face.
More precise: everybody should be in a position to make the distinction
themselves. Knowledge is not only information, in my opinion, it is also
the the way the information is processed. Knowledge should be choice,
because it is. In KM there is a manager who makes the choice what
information is knowledge and what not; in knewlegde management, it is
everybody. You can imagine how glad i am with internet.
>It immediately presents us
>with problems that it cannot solve. It is untenable. It dismisses truth
>versus falsity as an issue, and therefore fails its ost fundamental test,
>for if your definition of knowledge cannot address that most basic
>question, of what use it to us? Where do we turn for that distinction?
>Or does truth not count in business, or in life for that matter?
One and one makes two, that's true, but only when you have specified "and"
and "makes". Because one cloud and one cloud makes a big cloud when
merged, you cannot make a desert less lonely by adding one and two rabbits
of the opposite sex can make a whole bunch. I try to oppose that somebody
is telling me that one and one makes two, that this is good for the
organization and now buzz off. Without giving me the opportunity to see if
this holds water. I hope to find this in the NKM - which i still have not
read thoroughly. Truth - to me - is unimportant i can not check the truth
finding process, knowing - Popper - that only the falsity of a statement
can be proven.
>>The basic problem with knowledge management is not knowledge, but the
>>assumption that (more) knowledge needs to be managed. We're a part of the
>>framing of knowledge and become trapped in our own knowledge management
>>system. You might assume that knowledge doesn't exist of when it does
>>exist that it cannot be shared, increased or managed.
>
>The "basic problem" you speak of is of your own invention.
I agree, i should have taken more care to stipulate this.
>When did we
>agree that that was the basic problem of KM? The basic problem of The New
>KM is Knowledge Process Management and the process of differentiating truth
>from falsity, not knowledge management.
But, but, but ... differentiating between truth and falsity isn't that a
subjective, social, cultural dependent phenomena? Some things are always
true, some are always false and a large set of things false in between
(remember the three referees?). Surely you do not think that i think that
there is an absolute truth. (An absolute false might be proven, but to
prove that not-A is false doesn't always prove A is true). And i have
nothing to say about this, only about the management.
>I agree that the old KM suffered
>from this mistake, but I am also its chief critic! That has defined me
>and my stance on the subject for years now. Stop trying to saddle me or
>the rest of us with the same legacy mistake, especially since we have gone
>to such great lengths to distance ourselves from it. Jan, did you actually
>read what I wrote? Try listening for a change.
Well, if reading would imply that i agreed with you, then i didn't. If
reading would mean that i sat down and wrote you a reply, trying, in my
own clumsy way, to search for truth and delusion - understanding for me
means dialoguing - then i read it. I do not want to make the same mistake
too nor do i want to accuse you of making a big, big mistake. But i want
to shed some light on what you call NKM and what i call knewless
management.
>>>As for knowledge consisting of "writing stories," I guess I disagree with
>>>that. Knowledge consists of beliefs and claims about reality, the content
>>>of which we can communicate in stories, but knowledge is not the same as
>>>the act of creating stories. Knowledge is knowledge; writing stories
>>>is story-writing.
>
>>;-). I like your response. I think that i wanted to say that the process
>>of knowing, of gaining insights, learning, of discovering, of developing
>>is much more interesting to me than the knowledge itself. The knowledge
>>is in the knowing. I've studied physics (experimental biophysics) and
>>there i discovered that knowledge - as in a scientific article - is
>>presented as "knowledge", but is developed as storying, not searching,
>>but researching - and researching again. The cover - knowledge - IS a
>>cover-up of the content and meant to be judged by the cover. The real new
>>knowledge management would be about the cover up of the cover up. And
>>that's a different story.
>
>Well we can get into a debate of what label to give to what view, but the
>fact is that the New KM is a declared branch of KM that is based on
>fallibilism,
the fallibilism of management? does it supply workers with ways and means
to proves their management has been making or is making the wrong
decisions? Including the decision whether this organization is "for profit
only"?
>and not some other school or body of practice that you would
>ascribe to it. The New KM is about that and nothing else. If you have
>some other competing point of view to put forward, pick another name for
>it.
knewless management: the knowledge that starts with: "i dunno" and ends
with: "it might be different, thank you".
>>The role of knowledge and its management can be followed in the Iraq
>>crisis: there we have KM of the highest degree. Any New Knowledge
>>Management that doesn't address the issues on knowledge raised there (-
>>for instance: "how can we know that something isn't there" - ) goes on a
>>limp.
>
>In point of fact, the New KM has a great deal to say about the Iraq
>situation -- namely that authoritarians often illicitly impose what they
>say should pass for knowledge without allowing their claims to be
>subjected to open testing and criticism beforehand. In fact, I can't
>think of a more fitting case to call attention to the merits of the New
>KM, not its deficiencies. What could you possibly have been thinking of?
I dunno. Perhaps i was too much focussed on NKM as being a branch of KM.
snip
>>IT IS THE MANAGEMENT, STUPID!
snip
>>That's why i proposed a definition of management that is
>>applicable to all people, not just to managers or management teams.
>
>Well once again, you baffle me with your failure to read or hear what I
>actually said, not just what you presumed (or is it hoped?) I said.
OK, i seem to be reading between the lines. I certainly have tried not to
presume that you're not a decent guy. I do respect your views and opinions
and i'm only searching for the cause of my own resistance against KM and
or the NKM. Because i truly belief that learning is in the resistance and
that the only guy who is learning here is myself. If all went well, you
haven't learned anything.
>On
>the other hand, if it is ALL management that you agree to, then I fail to
>see how you live from one moment to the next, or what you would have the
>rest of us do as we attempt to sustain and improve ourselves. Don't we
>get to make decisions about anything? And is the organic farmer who
>admits to not being able to "manage" plant growth, but who strives instead
>to manage soil conditions, not engaged in management of a sort? Do you
>condemn organic farming too?
Not all management, only management that doesn't allow people to grow for
themselves, that loves to see how people develop themselves only for the
purpose of developing. The "amateur (amare = "to love") manager".
Organic farmers are renowned for their love of farming. Who is now putting
words in somebody else's mouth? And off course i think that everybody
manages, is a manager, applies KM and even NKM. That's why - i think now -
i'm so against use of Management in any concept. There is only one manager
and that is you!
Summary:
Understanding the New Knowledge Management made me aware of my own
understanding of the processes at work: we continuously try to persuade
others to behave in ways that benefit ourselves ("manage = manipulate").
We use our processed information ("knowledge") to that end. We also try to
persuade others to supply us the knowledge with which they manage
themselves and others, so we can even better manage. That is not wrong, as
long as we offer others a choice to comply or not. The New Knowledge
Management offers a way for everybody to openly check whether this is the
case (true) or not (false) when such is verifiable.
>>Thank you for your kind patience.
>
>Tested, as it was!
And again you patience was tested, as there was no reply. I'm sorry. All
the best, take care, hope from you to learn again,
Jan Lelie
>[Host's Note:
>
>Also, although this exchange has gotten just a bit testy, I am convinced
>there is value in trying to sort out these views about Org Learning and
>Knowledge Management. Finally, I believe Jan is on Holiday for a while.
> ..Rick]
>
Thank you Rick. Yeah, i was and - as i explained - i didn't notice the
reply until today, while cleaning out my closet.
Greetings,
J.
--Drs J.C. Lelie (Jan, MSc MBA) facilitator mind@work
mind@work VOF - ondersteuning besluitvorming van groepen LOGISENS - bedrijfsverbetering
tel.: + 31 (0)70 3243475 mob.: + 31 (0)65 4685114 (auto) web.: http://www.mindatwork.nl/
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@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.