In my last post on this subject, I described my own method of managing
knowledge without going into its implications. Someone may suggest that
mindfulness, ego-reduction and intuitive knowing are useful from a
personal perspective but do not lead us to actually managing knowledge and
may not be relevant to organizations. I think they are, and do. They
have powerful implications for learning organizations from families to
multinational firms.
Someone may say that knowledge management involves data, shared
perceptions, and other forms of information that people can classify,
discuss, argue about, and agree on. The method I described is a way to
evaluate data, perceptions and other kinds of information so that when I
come together with others I have some sense of what's going on, what it
means to me, and what it might mean to them. I find I react more slowly,
ask better questions, and am a more reliable participant in group
activities. In moments of reverie I like to imagine what it would be like
if an organization approached decision-making with mindfulness and
equanimity, but I tend to stay away from that place because it's so out of
touch with reality. >wry smile<
Managers and leaders tend to act confidently, although they also tend to
be plagued by self-doubt and a feeling of incompetence, that they're only
one step ahead of the people they supervise. Because of the fast pace of
managerial work, they don't have time to learn enough to feel that they
really know what they're doing. It seems to me that this group of people
could benefit from some of the ideas I mentioned. Some may say that there
isn't time to let things "soak" as I suggested. I doubt that many of the
crises in organizations are as time-sensitive as people think. As someone
in my agency was fond of saying, "We don't have time to do it right, but
we have time to do it over."
In my consulting work I find that one of the biggest obstacles to
effective decision-making is the strong tendency for organizations to
operate on the basis of hierarchical status (with credit to Margaret
Wheatley, who exposed this idea to me). I've also found that managers and
team leaders who can successfully set aside their institutional egos and
address matters clearly tend to have fewer long-term conflicts and
reversed decisions. Ultimately, I believe that the whole quality
improvement movement is based on facing organizational realities with
clarity and equanimity. The learning organization is an idealized
expression of the value of working with things as they really are rather
than as our deluded egos think they are.
At any rate, I think that knowledge management, like charity, begins at
home. If individuals can be more certain of what they know, whether they
use my approach or some other, then perhaps we will know a little more
what we're doing when we attempt to manage knowledge.
Controversially,
Dave
-- * David E. Birren Organizational Consultant, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources <birred@mail01.dnr.state.wi.us> Ph: 608-267-2442, Fax: 608-267-3579 Teach thy tongue to say 'I do not know' and thou shalt progress. -- MaimonidesLearning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>