KM and the Bigger Picture
Waltraut Ritter has a scathing and important critique of KM in general and the MAKE awards in particular, taking some pot shots at some of the participating case studies at KM Asia 2011 in the process (scroll down to the 22 Nov entry).
“Knowledge management practices are often narrowly focusing on internal operations and not addressing larger questions about the nature and sustainability of the knowledge driving the organization. There seems to be a separation of KM from the overall business strategy, a general neglect of addressing the larger questions about an organization’s knowledge and how such knowledge may create societal value beyond a company’s financial gains.” She gives an interesting example from Mars, referring to the ingredients in their product Skittles: “Few of these ingredients have anything to do with real food, and one might argue that the industrial food industry contributes to decreasing knowledge about nutrition and food in society rather than contributing to informed decision-making on food. Could the organization use KM to establish a serious dialogue with customers? Develop ideas and products for a global, sustainable food production?”
Important and difficult questions, connected to the earliest visions of KM back in the 1960s. In 1967 L.K. Caldwell wrote an article for the Public Administration Review in which he asked how knowledge management could help ensure that “all relevant knowledge is brought to bear upon the problems that society needs to solve [...] At the very least, the manager of knowledge needs to discover what science can tell respecting trends or objectives that would be socially harmful.”
16 Comments so far
- Patrick Lambe
Well it’s this kind of reasoning that has got us into all kinds of messes
Any knowledge manager who is in a position of influence (and to get into a position of influence is part of the job) should be able to support the ability of senior decision makers to make ethical as well as business decisions.
I think Waltraut’s point is a fair one, that KM as a “support service” has become the default position, and when we talk about strategic alignment we talk about KM as supporting a strategy not helping to drive or shape it. That assumption seems to me a missed opportunity.
That’s not to say that all “support” KM is bad or inadequate - sometimes resolving dysfunctionalities in information sharing and use (which is where KM usually gets to work) is exactly what the organisation needs. And it should be recognised as important and valuable work.
But if you are a large organization with significant social and economic impact trumpeting your knowledge-based abilities and achievements, I think Waltraut’s critique is fair game.
"Any knowledge manager who is in a position of influence (and to get into a position of influence is part of the job) should be able to support the ability of senior decision makers to make ethical as well as business decisions.”
Why is the word “knowledge” in that sentence? Surely it’s role of any manager to act ethically? Why should knowledge managers have a specific ethical responsibility compared to others?
If the proposal is that the criteria underlying the MAKE awards are a bit rubbish then fine. Most business awards are self-serving tosh.
But I get the sense that I (as someone with “knowledge manager” in their title) am on the receiving end of a moral lecture. And while that lecture may have some basis in fact, its form is off-putting and counter-productive.
“Few of these ingredients have anything to do with real food, and one might argue that the industrial food industry contributes to decreasing knowledge about nutrition and food in society rather than contributing to informed decision-making on food.”
It seems that I am even being told to eat my greens.
- Patrick Lambe
I guess we are really into the politics of knowledge here, which you are well aware of Mr Anonymous. Knowledge is one of the keys to good decisions, availability of knowledge ideally translates to transparency which has an influence on accountability, which is supposed to mitigate the risks of unethical activity by people in positions of power.
Restriction or manipulation of access to knowledge is a classic instrument of disempowerment. It is also an instrument of competition. Being able to manage knowledge at strategic levels is either instinctive (haphazard) or skilled (which is where reflective practice and learning come in, where I think knowledge managers should also be focusing their efforts). I really don’t get your resistance to this idea.
Maybe you are over-reacting to the tone of Waltraut’s post at the expense of the underlying argument? But I find your sensitivity interesting - as I said, uncomfortable questions - but important ones. If I might counterphrase you: this might sound idealistic, but it’s true.
"Maybe you are over-reacting to the tone of Waltraut’s post at the expense of the underlying argument?”
Perhaps, but the importance of tone shouldn’t be underestimated.
“But I find your sensitivity interesting - as I said, uncomfortable questions - but important ones.”
So to me, this is another case of a consulting playing the role of “prophet”. The prophet comes in and tells everyone that they are screwed up. “You are not strategic enough”, “you are not aligned to business priorities” and now: “you are not saving the world”. This is all well and good for the prophet. They get to stand on the stage and tell everyone else how screwed up they are.
But the prophet tends to lack empathy. They say “you” rather than “me”. There is little acknowledgement of the conflicts, complexities and compromises of lived experience. To the prophet, these things are just excuses for inaction.
Now the audience recognise that what the prophet says is true (to an extent). There is some self-flagellation. Maybe a little change. However while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. And the prophet is no longer there. They are off to tell another bunch of people that they are screwed up and must repent. Perhaps they are in an airport lounge somewhere, writing a blog post.
I will return to content in a while but form also matters.
- Patrick Lambe
Well while you are on the metaphor, I think there’s a role for prophecy, and as you know the relationship between prophets and their audiences is rarely an easy or comfortable one. Prophets generally don’t have it easy, either.
Prophets, btw, can be internal as well as external. And consultants are not necessarily butterflies. We, for example, typically work with clients on multiple projects over 2-3 year stretches, and while we are not subjected to the internal constraints and politics to the same degree as our project partners, we do have to marry words with deeds and show results, not just speeches and reports.
My reaction to Waltraut’s post was to examine myself and what we do, and ask whether we settle too easily for the safe stuff, whether we need to be asking more searching questions and pushing the envelope in more important directions. To me, that feels healthy, but difficult. So I appreciated Waltraut’s post.
On the matter of form in communications, we often place the burden of it on the speaker. I think there is also a role in the listener, when we slot what we hear into frames, metaphors and models that were never intended by the speaker. That’s the value of conversation, to tease those out and separate intent from effect where they diverge.
But I’m just the middle person here: I guess the person this conversation should be with, is Waltraut.
"Knowledge is one of the keys to good decisions, availability of knowledge ideally translates to transparency which has an influence on accountability, which is supposed to mitigate the risks of unethical activity by people in positions of power.”
Yeah, that actually sounds more like an internal audit function to me. Now if you want to recast KM as internal audit then I’d have to ask why you think knowledge managers could do a better job of it than the people doing it already.
The broader issue with expanding the boundaries of KM is that roles in other domains often exist - i.e. there are sustainability managers, community engagement officers. If I were to walk into the office of our head of sustainability and say “Waltraut Ritter and Patrick Lambe say I should be in charge of our organisation’s sustainability activities”, she’d go: “well, bully for them but they don’t call the shots round here”.
Should knowledge managers understand the knowledge-based aspects of sustainability? Why, yes, that’s not a bad idea. They should understand lots of things. Should they be doing all the external comms & community engagement & sustainability & saving endangered species? Not necessarily.
I have enough difficulty trying to influence things like content mgt & internal communities to begin with.
Now it should not be assumed that because an organisation has someone with “sustainability” in their title, they care about sustainability. But I’m not sure that asking the knowledge manager to look after it is a fix for that.
- Patrick Lambe
I wasn’t claiming that - I think you’re building a bit of a straw man here. I was simply suggesting that there are knowledge aspects of those kinds of work that are under-served - in the same way that an operational manager often just doesn’t pay attention to/ or is not fully conscious of the mechanics and dynamics of knowledge and information flows in an operational role.
The role of the knowledge manager is (a) to be able to see and understand those dynamics, (b) highlight them for their owner-operator to become conscious and competent in managing them, and (c) build/support infrastructure and capabilities to support that.
"Could the organization use KM to establish a serious dialogue with customers? Develop ideas and products for a global, sustainable food production?”
Why, yes. They could also use market researchers, who already have decades worth of experience in creating dialogues with customers.
“the industrial food industry contributes to decreasing knowledge about nutrition and food in society rather than contributing to informed decision-making on food”
I think there’s a problem with this position. It assumes that “bad” choices are solely the result of poor information or corporate misinformation. Now, in some cases this may be true but just because people know what the notionally right thing, they won’t necessarily do it. Most smokers in the developed world know that their habit will harm them. And yet they smoke anyway.
This does not mean that I am against the public reduction of ignorance but we can’t be naive about its causes or effects.
"the relationship between prophets and their audiences is rarely an easy or comfortable one. Prophets generally don’t have it easy, either.”
I was aware of the further implications of the metaphor when I made it. Some prophets have it easy, some don’t. And in some cases, they don’t have it easy because they are clumsy, inept & overly confrontational.
“Prophets, btw, can be internal as well as external. And consultants are not necessarily butterflies.”
I wasn’t claiming that all consultants were either butterflies or prophets. I was identifying “the prophet” as an archetype that I’ve encountered at conferences. They are generally consultants. As you can no doubt infer, I’m a bit over prophets at the moment.
“On the matter of form in communications, we often place the burden of it on the speaker. I think there is also a role in the listener, when we slot what we hear into frames, metaphors and models that were never intended by the speaker.”
Human condition, innit.
"The role of the knowledge manager is (a) to be able to see and understand those dynamics, (b) highlight them for their owner-operator to become conscious and competent in managing them, and (c) build/support infrastructure and capabilities to support that.”
So what might prevent that from happening in practice?
- Patrick Lambe
Some of your questions are clearly addressed to Waltraut so I’ll let her decide whether she wants to address them.
The “innit” comment - absolutely…
the “what might prevent that happening” question sounds like a leading question, but I’m not going to be led on it.I think the reasons for it not happening are many and various, only one of which is the answer I’m guessing you have poised.
"the “what might prevent that happening” question sounds like a leading question, but I’m not going to be led on it.I think the reasons for it not happening are many and various, only one of which is the answer I’m guessing you have poised.”
It’s not a leading question - in that I think there is one answer that I intend to spring on you as some kind of “gotcha”. I agree that the reasons are many & various - and I wanted you to supply some of them.
- Patrick Lambe
Well that’s a whole nother discussion and probably too complex for the tail end of a comment thread. It would entail sketching out the activities first. Article territory at the very least. Besides, I think you’d do a better job of addressing that question than I would.
- Waltraut Ritter
Thanks Patrick, for the reference to L.K. Caldwell from 1967. My critique with current KM practices was that the strategic and societal dimensions seem to get less attention in corporate KM to an extent that there is no reflection about what kind of knowledge an organization is based upon, and whether this knowledge has any value beyond producing financial profit.
Interestingly, in a recent survey by Deloitte and the Economist Intelligence Unit (Jan 2012), 92% of the business leaders believe that success should be measured by more than just profit, and a large majority believe that “a value of a company should be measured by their “societal purpose”. http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_LU/lu/about/6295d8e8dde25310VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm
And yes, Mr Necessarily Anonymous, KM is a constant “critique of corporation-based capitalism” and I think it’s key role for information and knowledge managers to professionally challenge and “disturb” traditional business thinking of line managers.
This is also one of the reason why KM professionals better choose a job which doesn’t require “paying the mortgage” as it requires a certain independence.KM is about growing the intangibles of an organization, which by definition is concerned with sustainable business growth. Do we have time for KM in non-sustainable business environments?
Interesting discussion ... but I have to lean more towards NA. A few years back when doing PostGrad in KM one of the academics was taking this very strong environmental slant and I had to say I did not agree fully with.
I see KM as being more about helping the organisation make decisions - it is less their remit to enforce some moral compas on those decisions (as NA suggests, any more or less than any other staff member of comparable rank).
Having said that - KM is also helping people be the best they can be (development etc) - and as staff and managers become more enlightened through the ‘betterment’ process their thinking and decision making should move towards a more ethical place.
I suspect the reality is if the latter is done well, people are more likely to leave and work for a more ethical organisation than change the one they are in ...
Page 1 of 1 pages
Comment Guidelines: Basic XHTML is allowed (<strong>, <em>, <a>) Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically generated. URLs are automatically converted into links.
It reads like: “Why aren’t knowledge managers saving the world?”
And the answer is: Because that’s not what we’re paid to do.
That may sound cynical but it’s true. My primary task as an employee is to increase revenue & profitability. That’s not necessarily my role as a citizen and indeed a human being but it pays the bills.
If Waltraut believes that knowledge managers should be at the vanguard of a critique of corporation-based capitalism then as valid as that may be, I can’t see that being an easy sell because we’re as compromised as everyone else.
BTW MAKE awards - meh.
Posted on February 09, 2012 at 08:35 AM | Comment permalink