Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management: A Social Constructionist Perspective

Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management NEW HORIZONS IN MANAGEMENT Series Editor: Cary L. Cooper, CBE, Professor...

Author: Tojo Joseph Thatchenkery | Dilpreet Chowdhry

29 downloads 960 Views 670KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management

NEW HORIZONS IN MANAGEMENT Series Editor: Cary L. Cooper, CBE, Professor of Organizational Psychology and Health, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, UK. This important series makes a significant contribution to the development of management thought. This field has expanded dramatically in recent years and the series provides an invaluable forum for the publication of high quality work in management science, human resource management, organizational behaviour, marketing, management information systems, operations management, business ethics, strategic management and international management. The main emphasis of the series is on the development and application of new original ideas. International in its approach, it will include some of the best theoretical and empirical work from both well-established researchers and the new generation of scholars. Titles in the series include: Organizational Relationships in the Networking Age The Dynamics of Identity Formation and Bonding Edited by Willem Koot, Peter Leisink and Paul Verweel Islamic Perspectives on Management and Organization Abbas J. Ali Supporting Women’s Career Advancement Challenges and Opportunities Edited by Ronald J. Burke and Mary C. Mattis Research Companion to Organizational Health Psychology Edited by Alexander-Stamatios G. Antoniou and Cary L. Cooper Innovation and Knowledge Management The Cancer Information Service Research Consortium J. David Johnson Managing Emotions in Mergers and Acquisitions Verena Kusstatscher and Cary L. Cooper Employment of Women in Chinese Cultures Half the Sky Cherlyn Granrose Competing Values Leadership Creating Value in Organizations Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn, Jeff DeGraff and Anjan V. Thakor Women in Leadership and Management Edited by Duncan McTavish and Karen Miller Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management A Social Constructionist Perspective Tojo Thatchenkery and Dilpreet Chowdhry

Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management A Social Constructionist Perspective

Tojo Thatchenkery Professor of Organizational Learning, School of Public Policy, George Mason University, USA

Dilpreet Chowdhry Management Specialist, FannieMae, Washington, DC, USA

NEW HORIZONS IN MANAGEMENT

Edward Elgar Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Tojo Thatchenkery and Dilpreet Chowdhry 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited Glensanda House Montpellier Parade Cheltenham Glos GL50 1UA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Control Number: 2006017897

ISBN 978 1 84542 590 6 Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

To Tessy, Sruthi, Manjit, Mina, Tanvir, and the PSOL/ODKM Learning Community

Contents List of figures List of tables Acknowledgements

viii xi x

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1 12 32 49 74 116 139 152

Introduction: a new adventure Knowledge sharing: a historical perspective The generative potential of appreciative processes How to ASK Private sector case studies Government sector case studies Public service case study Summary, conclusion, and invitations

Bibliography Index

155 161

vii

Figures 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3

Knowledge sharing: a historical evolution Overview of the ASK process Knowledge sharing timeline – Phase 1 Knowledge sharing timeline – Phase 2 Knowledge sharing timeline – Phase 3 Knowledge sharing timeline – Phase 4 Knowledge socialization – the spiral evolution of knowledge conversion and self-transcending process The general structure of an appreciative system The process of appreciation The process of appreciation Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge steps Knowledge enablers and knowledge infrastructure factors Interacting elements of future-present scenarios

viii

3 8 12 19 22 29 30 37 38 39 40 50 60 67

Tables 1.1 1.2 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 8.1

Two approaches to knowledge sharing Overview of the ASK steps Contrasting retrospective and prospective approaches to knowledge management ASK actions Knowledge enablers Matrix for constructing future-present scenario statements Knowledge sharing matrix with specific examples Examples of possibility propositions Possibility propositions Possibility propositions Overview of ASK steps

ix

2 8 43 51 65 69 102 105 127 144 154

Acknowledgements We are indebted to several individuals in the endeavor of putting this book together. We thank the Vice-president and the specialized staff at the financial services institution at which we applied the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge (ASK) method for their support in trying out the new approach. We also thank the graduates of the George Mason University Organizational Learning program who collected the data for three of the case studies. Since we cannot reveal the names of those organizations, the identity of the graduates is not mentioned. We are grateful to the following graduates who conducted the MARAD project and gave us permission to use the study and their names: Raymond Pagliarini, Anita Murphy, Dan Eisen, Julia Nissely, and Ursula Koerner. We are particularly thankful to Raymond Pagliarini who secured permission to conduct the project at MARAD. Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge: Leveraging Knowledge Management for Strategic Change (2005), a practitioner version describing step-by-step ASK methodology was written by Tojo Thatchenkery, co-author of this book, and published by Taos Institute. We thank Taos Institute Publications for letting us use material from the book where appropriate. All such references and citations are used with the permission of the copyright holder and publisher. We have tried to ensure that necessary credits are given to those individuals and organizations. If we have made an error, please let us know and we will make appropriate acknowledgement in future editions of this book. We are also grateful to several colleagues who supported us in many ways, including David Barry, Kenneth Gergen, David Cooperrider, Dawn Dole, Kingsley Haynes, Roger Stough, William Rifkin, and Ram Tenkasi. We thank Alan Sturmer, Senior Acquisitions Editor at Edward Elgar Publishing for enthusiastically commissioning our book, Tara Gorvine and Julie Leppard for early support, Katy Wight, Promotions Manager for her publicity efforts, and David Vince, Desk Editor for his excellent and prompt production support. Without their active assistance and commitment this project would not have been possible. Last, but not the least, we are indebted to our families – Tessy, Sruthi, Manjit, Mina, and Tanvir for their love, understanding, and support. Tojo Thatchenkery, Dilpreet Chowdhry x

1.

Introduction: a new adventure

Think about a time when you shared something that you knew that enabled you or your company to do something better or achieve success. What happened? Tell us the story. Think about a time when one of your colleagues shared something with you that enabled you or your company to do something better or achieve success. What happened? What did you admire in your colleague? Tell us the story. Take a moment to think about the answers to these questions. Our guess is that you can easily come up with examples of when you felt overburdened, overwhelmed, or stressed at your job, but you may need a few minutes to think about when you appreciated how you work and how valuable your work is to those around you. This should not be surprising. Traditional applications of organizational change and knowledge sharing rely on finding and solving problems. While this sort of deficit and critical thinking can be valuable in some contexts, it often leaves groups of people feeling frustrated, unsatisfied, and unappreciated. Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge (ASK) turns this upside down. We developed this model with the idea that it would take the best successes of organizations and attempt to reinforce and build upon them in a positive way while working within the existing culture of the organization. We illustrate the two contrasting approaches to knowledge sharing in Table 1.1 below.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING As the 9/11 Commission Report stated, the most identifiable cause of the September 11, 2001 event was the failure among the intelligence agencies to share knowledge. Similar challenges exist in most organizations. Those organizations that have addressed knowledge sharing issues productively are the best in their field. The study of knowledge sharing has tried to replicate practices from the best, but organizations have learned that one size does not fit all. Initially, in the 1990s, practitioners and theorists in the field of knowledge sharing assumed that the reason workers were not able to communicate was because the infrastructure did not exist to help them do 1

2

Appreciative inquiry and knowledge management

Table 1.1

Two approaches to knowledge sharing

Problem Solving ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

Knowledge sharing as a problem to be solved Identification of problem Highlight what is broken Identify knowledge sharing problems: What makes people hoard knowledge? Analysis of causes Generate possible solutions Action planning and treatment Fixing as intervention Looking at what is missing

Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge (ASK) ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

Knowledge sharing as an opportunity to be embraced Valuing and appreciating ‘what is’ Affirm what is working Identify knowledge enablers: What makes people share knowledge? Envision what is possible Generate future-present scenarios Innovating/realizing what will be Affirmation as intervention Looking at what is present

so. They were convinced that technology would solve the problem. While technology addressed some issues, it fell short in many areas. With the advent of Lotus Notes and other collaborative software, organizations created, categorized, and sliced information in the hopes that by documenting their information people could share knowledge more effectively. The knowledge sharing toolkit market became saturated with companies that wanted to get on the bandwagon. Corporations spent significant amounts of resources instituting knowledge sharing architectures on the axiom that ‘if you build it, they will come’. People who rapidly needed to turn around time sensitive documents like proposals still had to frantically search for current information immediately before the document was due, but the knowledge management tools did not always help because they were not populated with the right information. Often, the tools were not used or contained unusable information and thus became quickly irrelevant, not meeting business needs. As it became clear that the knowledge management tools were not delivering adequately on their promise, attention was focused on the possibility that the concept of knowledge sharing itself might be an oxymoron. Using the term ‘management’ implies that knowledge can be planned, organized, and controlled. Since knowledge mostly resides in people’s heads, managing it is inherently problematic. The field of knowledge sharing soon made a paradigm shift from knowledge ‘management’ to knowledge ‘sharing’. We began to realize that one of the key reasons that people were not contributing what they knew was because of the perception that they would lose their control on knowledge once it was

3

Knowledge management or knowledge sharing stage

Introduction Knowledge sharing: a historical evolution

5 4 3 2 1 0 1990–1993

1993–1999

1999–2003

present

Time Notes: ● ● ● ●

Stage 1 (1990–1993) – Focus on technology infrastructure as the solution to the KM problem Stage 2 (1991–1999) – KM tool saturation, widespread use of KM tools, companies ‘getting on the bandwagon’ Stage 3 (1999–2003) – Knowledge sharing as an oxymoron; knowledge cannot be managed but instead must be shared Stage 4 (current) – What will help people share knowledge? Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge (ASK).

Figure 1.1

Knowledge sharing: a historical evolution

shared. Subsequently, they might be perceived as less valuable by the company. Overall, organizations were beginning to understand the power of unleashing knowledge among individuals. What they struggled with was how exactly to unleash that power, given that the very behavior of hoarding the knowledge is what makes employees successful. After all, it is primarily the hyper-competitive culture of many organizations that creates the knowledge hoarding climate. The challenge then is figuring out how to create a knowledge sharing culture. One of the basic tenets of this book is that if we share knowledge appreciatively, managing knowledge will no longer be an issue. Affirmation may very well be considered a psychological need. Knowledge sharing is one way this need is fulfilled in organizations. If knowledge sharing is done in an appreciative manner, more people are willing to share. The presence of an explicitly appreciative format allows others to say what is on their mind without being questioned, critiqued or put on the defensive. In this book we expand on the concept of appreciation and show how organizations can create appreciative systems that would institutionalize knowledge sharing and create organizational excellence. We also give

4


examples of organizations that have already planted the seeds for the knowledge exchange to happen. The ASK process can reinvent – in a sustainable manner – the way we think about organizing. By linking practices, artifacts, technologies, and managerial skills, the ASK perspective offers a creative way to manage a wide range of enterprises. As knowledge becomes central to organizations, networks, and markets, the principles and practices of ASK empower a lifeaffirming process of creating value. The first part of this work is focused on providing information in order to re-center ourselves regarding the values of appreciation.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Chapter 2 provides a historical context for the concept of knowledge sharing, part of which is outlined in Figure 1.1. Knowledge sharing is of crucial importance in societal evolution. From our ancestral huntergatherers to current copy machine technicians, knowledge sharing has withstood the test of time. The hunter-gatherers’ organizational structure dating back to 10 000 BC provides a powerful testimony of knowledge sharing’s value. By optimizing and making the best use of the knowledge around them, the hunter-gatherers were able to lead a lifestyle that may be seen as healthy even by today’s standards. The hunter-gatherers devoted only a few hours a day to searching for food and sent out only a fraction of the able-bodied foragers each day. By making superior use of their members’ knowledge, they were able to survive harsh conditions (Ehin, 2000, p. 58). Using historical data, we show that the knowledge management methods of hunter-gatherers bear a surprising relevance to contemporary organizational knowledge sharing practices. In this chapter, we also explore other similarities between the rich knowledge sharing cultures rooted in history and those of today’s organizations. We conclude by summarizing the lessons learned from the past regarding knowledge sharing and by articulating the concrete ways that learning might apply to the current challenges faced by knowledge sharing. We show that the core element of all successful knowledge cultures of the past was the presence of some form of appreciative system. Such approaches did not define human endeavors in deficit terms but as presence, almost like a form of unconditional acceptance of whatever happened.

Introduction

5

THE GENERATIVE POTENTIAL OF APPRECIATIVE PROCESSES In Chapter 3 we explore the concept of appreciation and its generative potential in detail. The concept has strong roots in the philosophical theories of organizational and social sciences. Our goal in this chapter is to establish the foundation for a strong theoretical premise to support the concept of ASK. The root of appreciation is linked to the Pygmalion and Galatea effects. In Roman mythology, Galatea was the name of a statue of a beautiful woman that was brought to life by Venus, goddess of love, in response to the prayers of the sculptor Pygmalion, who had fallen in love with his creation. Considerable research evidence and literature exist regarding this phenomenon, which is variously called a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, the Pygmalion effect, and the Rosenthal effect (Murphy, Campbell, and Garavan, 1999; Kierein and Gold, 2000; Reynolds, 2002; Rowe and O’Brien, 2002). We have chosen the term ‘Galatea effect’ to underscore the fact that it is the beauty of the statue that created the desire in Pygmalion. The adoption of the Galatea effect to this aspect of appreciation and knowledge sharing creates significant differences in the way people feel about their capacity to create change in organizations. Essentially, once the knowledge enabling properties are correctly identified, building on them is possible because each individual imagines the ideal future as if it has already happened. It may seem simple and obvious that people who appreciate each other in the workplace will have a better working relationship than those who have an adversarial relationship. So what then makes it challenging to create an appreciative environment? Over the course of this book we reconcile how to meld our innate appreciative needs with our critical problem solving minds. The most common misnomer is that appreciation is as simple as ‘turning a frown upside down’. However, doing so is not an appreciative act at all. The appreciative approach asks the participants to take a hard look at the reality around them, but affirmatively. But this does not mean ignoring or neglecting the current reality. In this chapter we discuss how the need for the appreciative mindset has historically evolved for knowledge sharing. We provide two ways of looking at knowledge: a retrospective and a prospective approach. In the former, the focus is to look back at what happened with a critical and analytical mindset. This approach, similar to dissection in a biology laboratory, a postmortem of an event, or a case study, has certain merits. It is clearly the dominant approach and has been historically used in a wide range of fields. Examples include the case study

6


of a patient in a medical school, the After Action Review that the U.S. Army uses immediately after a training or practice engagement in the field, and the well-known case study approach used in business schools worldwide. The retrospective approach in knowledge sharing looks at what is broken in an organization regarding how knowledge is utilized, isolates the causes for the broken state of affairs, and comes up with remedial actions or ‘fixes’ to correct the inefficiencies in the system. In this chapter we also explain the connection between language and knowledge sharing. Encouraged by the strong support expressed in social constructionist writings (Gergen, 1999; Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2004), a specific question is raised in this chapter: what happens when the language to address the organizational knowledge sharing problem itself is changed? What happens if the new approach doesn’t even look at problems as problems? We believe that one such approach that can achieve a significant impact in the knowledge sharing field is Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge. We also show how the ASK approach itself is a derivative of a widely successful organizational development tool called ‘appreciative inquiry’, originally proposed by Cooperrider and Srivastva in 1987.

HOW TO ASK? Chapter 4 explores the process of how to do an ASK initiative. We expect that by the time the reader reaches this stage after reading the case studies of diverse organizations, he or she would have a good sense of the pragmatic issues involved in the process. That is why this chapter provides a systematic way of initiating and completing an ASK initiative for any organization. The chapter is more like a tool kit, or workbook explaining the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the ASK process, most of which is borrowed from Thatchenkery’s previous work titled Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge (Taos Institute, 2005). To give a taste of this approach, we mention a few aspects of the process below, repeating what we have mentioned earlier. Think about a time when you shared something that you knew that enabled you or your company to do something better or achieve success. What happened? Tell us the story. Think about a time when one of your colleagues shared something with you that enabled you or your company to do something better or achieve success. What happened? What did you admire in your colleague? Tell us the story. Such questions provide an outline for the foundation of ASK. Pose them to a group of approximately 30 people and you will be positively impacted

Introduction

7

by the stories that you hear. It is akin to the sparkle that your child feels listening to a teacher speak of Harry Potter-like wizardry. The reactions to the questions above will help you determine the preexisting climate for knowledge sharing in your organization. If key people view this exercise as a waste of time, that might be your first indication that they are not treating knowledge sharing as a high priority. Senior leaders who might have this attitude may unconsciously encourage knowledge hoarding behavior. The key ingredient for Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge is climate. Does the organization support sharing? Do people feel they have to hoard their knowledge in order to survive? What has been the history of knowledge sharing initiatives in the organization? Responses to these questions play a key role in deciding when and how you would introduce ASK in an organization. Many people find organizations to be alienating and oppressive environments. Hence it should not surprise an ASK enthusiast that the appreciative climate is not present in every organization. However, this does not mean that an ASK initiative or approach will not work there. An appreciative climate can be created with top management support. As pointed out in the first chapter, creating an appreciative outlook needs a certain amount of reframing of organizational reality. One has to look consciously to find knowledge sharing events or experiences even when they seem absent at first glance. Overview of the ASK Process As in any organizational change technique, we begin ASK by focusing on the current state or ‘what is’. Steps 1, 2, and 3, which are explained in later chapters, will help the practitioner or change agent discover the appreciative temperature of their organization with a series of questions asked in a facilitated session using interviews. The goal will be to capture what has worked so far in the organization and to extract the core processes supporting knowledge sharing. During these steps a set of key themes or ‘knowledge enablers’ will emerge throughout several of the stories that the participants share. Steps 4, 5, and 6, also described in later chapters, validate the knowledge enablers through a series of interviews and subsequent organizational analyses. Finally, we will also build upon them to create a set of ‘future-present scenarios’ that are similar to a specific vision of a future that one can perceive in the present. Step 7 takes that list further by expanding and prioritizing them into more manageable and actionable options. The resulting step 8 creates an action plan to make ‘what will be’ real. Figure 1.2 and Table 1.2 depict and summarize the steps.

8

Step


1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be

Infrastructure Factors

Key Themes • •

Outcome

Process

• • •

Identify Knowledge Enablers

Vote Action ActionItems Items 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4.

K1 K2 K3 K4

5.

Identify Five Knowledge Enablers

Figure 1.2

Table 1.2

Create FuturePresent Possibilities

Prioritize Actions

Create an Action Plan

Overview of the ASK process

Overview of the ASK steps

Step

Action

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Negotiating top management commitment and support Presenting the appreciative knowledge sharing paradigm Identification of knowledge enablers Expansion of knowledge enablers using appreciative interviews designed and conducted by the ASK team Thematic analysis of the data to undertake a knowledge infrastructure analysis Constructing future-present scenarios Consensual validation of the future-present scenarios Creating and mandating an implementation team


Introduction

9

These steps can be adopted based on the needs of your organization. By adopting them you may ignite the generative potential that already resides within.

CASE STUDIES Chapters 5, 6, and 7 show case studies of five organizations where the ASK approach was used. Each of them starts with a description of the organization and the status of the organization before the ASK process began, and describes how the ASK initiative was negotiated and conducted, lessons learned and future directions. Chapter 5 describes the first of the ASK studies which were conducted in a large financial services organization in the US, the GCB Bank (not the real name), and an environmental information technology company, ITC, which is also a fictional name to protect its identity. Chapter 6 narrates how the process worked in two government organizations: the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and another federal agency, identified only as AFA to protect its identity. Chapter 7 provides an ASK example in a public service organization. These stories give the reader a detailed blueprint for the techniques of designing and implementing an ASK initiative. These chapters also contain an analysis of what factors were present in each of these organizations that helped them become knowledge enabling cultures. For example, in Chapter 4, ITC wanted to learn more about the knowledge sharing currently taking place. The recently appointed Chief Knowledge Officer wanted to use this to set the foundation for the knowledge management program that she hoped to create. Another objective was to find out ‘who knows what’ and to learn if ITC’s infrastructure could sustain continued growth and support new clients. With approximately 300 employees ITC was soon going to grow to 500 employees due to increased work demand. Accessing and sharing the knowledge of each and every employee was crucial to its success and further growth. Sharing information, keeping it current, and becoming aware of what other members of the organization were thinking about and doing were necessary to improve the bottom line of the company. ITC was working to increase knowledge sharing – both internally, to ensure that its infrastructure would sustain and encourage growth, and externally, to continually support and increase its number of clients – in order to continue the success of its previous ten years. The following stories, which we refer to as quintessential stories, appeared in multiple interviews and in a number of other interviews across the team:

10

Appreciative inquiry and knowledge management ●

Gary (fictional name) created a developer’s portal for the internet team. He had been an analyst and he started analyzing pages, grouped and linked white papers on new technologies, and built a portal. He started telling people in the company and they’d look at it. And they’d send him stuff to add to it. It has a database you can use to search proposals; it has tools for cutting graphics, web sites are categorized, and it has statistics. What started out as a personal interest became a valuable company tool.

This frequently shared story became a quasi legend within the organization and was used as a testimony that showed employees, current and future, that individual initiatives were recognized and genuinely valued by the company. ●

‘My colleague and I were meeting in an ITC conference room, and we could hear through the wall a conversation that a client was having with an ITC consultant. This unintentional eavesdropping became intentional. So, we pulled the consultant out of the room and took him to another conference room. We told him that we heard what he and the client were talking about, and shared our knowledge that was relevant to the client’s issues. This informal sharing of knowledge resulted in a good outcome for ITC as well as the client. Our decisions, based on that informal knowledge sharing, were validated by positive feedback from the client.’ (Personal interview with author, 2000)

This story enforces the informal organic interactions that help the organization thrive. ●

‘When the “Green Team” cleaned up a section of highway for the Adopt-a-Highway program, the president provided money to buy plants for the area under the highway sign that let people know ITC adopted this section. What was neat about this project was that it was about giving back to the community. Some people used part of their eight hours of volunteer time for it, and we got to know each other better – those relationships provided a foundation for working with people. Through our informal conversation, we also learned what each other does.’ (Personal interview with author, 2000)

These two stories reveal the sense of community and the comfort with knowledge sharing that pervaded ITC.

Introduction

11

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND INVITATIONS Chapter 8 provides a summary of what has been provided in the previous seven chapters, generates some conclusions and generalizations on what has been learned, and asks the practitioner community to continue to use the process for organizations of all types. We believe our success with the process has allowed us to share what we have learned about this unique and innovative knowledge sharing tool. At a time when change is the permanent fixture in organizations’ efforts for growth and survival, ASK is a refreshing approach in the field of knowledge sharing. This book shares stories of appreciation and knowledge sharing experienced by several organizations and gives you tips and tools to jump-start a knowledge sharing culture to leave your organization with a culture that realizes its fullest potential. We hope that you will have as much fun engaging with the process as we did.

2. Knowledge sharing: a historical perspective

Figure 2.1

Knowledge sharing timeline – Phase 1 12

Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge (2001+) Communities of practice & storytelling (2000)

Appreciative Inquiry (1986)

1980

Knowledge Conversion Process (1986)

Rise of modernistic knowledge mgmt (1980) Enlightenment Age of Reason (1,700 AD)

Arabic scholars (1,000 AD) 1,000 AD

Renaissance ‘rebirth’ of learning (1,400 AD)

Monastic schools (600 AD) Middle Ages education (500 AD)

Irish monasteries (400 AD)

2nd European ‘explosion’(300 BC) 0

Plato & Socrates establish school (387 BC)

Greek ‘explosion’ (600 BC) Orator school begins (400 BC)

Importation of papyrus (800 BC) Gurukul (1,200 BC)

Mesopotamia (3,100 BC)

Egypt (3,000 BC)

Hunter-gatherers (10,000 BC)

Knowledge has always played an important role in societal advancement (Figure 2.1). Moses is thought to have faced the challenge of sharing knowledge while wandering in the desert in search of the Promised Land. The Phoenicians were implicitly concerned about how knowledge about trade logistics and merchant practices was built, transferred to employees, and applied to make operations as successful as possible. With that much history behind us, claiming that we now live in a ‘knowledge society,’ as if it is something unique, is no more informative than saying that we now live in a ‘power society’, or ‘money society’ or ‘culture society.’ Yet knowledge sharing is of crucial importance in societal evolution. People have attributed the survival of humanity to many things such as

Knowledge sharing

13

leadership, the prevailing of good over evil, and political ideologies (democracy over totalitarianism). In this book, we add appreciative knowledge sharing as another process that helped in the evolution of industrial society to what it is today. From our ancestral hunter-gatherers to current copy machine technicians, knowledge sharing has been around and has stood the test of time.

HUNTER-GATHERERS The hunter-gatherers’ organizational structure dating back to 10,000 BC provides a powerful testimony of the value of knowledge sharing. By optimizing and making the best use of the knowledge around them, they were able to lead a lifestyle that may be seen as healthy even by today’s standards (Ehin, 2000). As mentioned earlier, the hunter-gatherers used only a fraction of their able-bodied foragers, who then devoted only a few hours a day searching for food. Their hunting and gathering techniques were based on superior knowledge sharing (Ehin, 2000), as is the case for many industries today. The best survival strategy for the foragers was to function in small, egalitarian, self-organizing organic networks in which interdependence, intimacy, equity, trust, and sharing flourished. According to Ehin (2000), knowledge sharing occurred in their tribal structure because their organization was rich in connections and relationships that made it possible for them to know what they knew. The knowledge sharing also made it possible to create other values and practices, all of which are seen as highly desirable in current management thinking. For example, Ehin (2000) points out that members of foraging groups were fully accepted for what they were: skilled in certain areas and less skilled in others (the value of appreciation). All individuals were considered to be of equal intrinsic worth and able to control and regulate their own lives (the value of respecting autonomy). One knowledge sharing characteristic we can take away from this example is their ability to develop rich relationships and networks. The hunter-gatherers divided up their work based on a smart allocation of individuals’ skills. Even with the division of labor they were able to share knowledge across ‘bands’ or organizational units (Ehin, 2000). Tribes consisted of approximately 150 people with small bands of 30 to 50 people. These bands were very tightly knit groups that were loosely connected to an organic network of similar small bands located in the same region. Everyone lived by a strong ethic of sharing leading to a structure that was extraordinarily egalitarian with no hierarchies or class differences. These bands of foragers periodically (as often as every five weeks) gathered as a

14


larger societal group for festivals lasting from days to a few weeks. These large gatherings were periods of intense social interaction that included visiting, feasting, gambling, gift exchange, marriage brokerage, and trance dancing (Power, 1991, p. 227). Such a pattern of information exchange promoted the development of a collective memory (including myths) that served as an organizational vision, keeping all tribal members on the same course without restraining individual initiative. Reciprocity and knowledge sharing were two of the key egalitarian social values of the foragers. Even the tribal demography was the result of highly efficient knowledge sharing and resembled the micro-communities of practice, which is central to knowledge management theories today. The commonality between the knowledge management practices of huntergatherers and the workforce today is striking. For example, individuals owned their own means of production similar to that of the knowledge workers of today who carry their means of production or intellectual capital in their heads. That is, land and its resources were collectively used but tools, weapons, and other personal items were the property of those who possessed them. Further, leadership was fluid and situational. No authoritarian chiefs existed to enforce their will on others. Having discussed the knowledge sharing practices of pre-literate societies, let us now move on to knowledge sharing in literate societies.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN LITERATE SOCIETIES The capacity to acquire and share knowledge has always been the route to power and wealth. This was as true in 8000 BC as it is in 2007 AD. Mesopotamia (now southern Iraq) is the site of the earliest human civilization. According to Van Doren (1991), as early as 8000 BC, a kind of primitive writing was developed here which by 3100 BC had clearly developed into the Sumerian language. ‘Knowing how to read and write was the way to wealth and power among the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians who succeeded the Sumerians’ (Van Doren, 1991, p. 10). Five thousand years later, acquiring knowledge is still the way to wealth and power! In ancient Egypt, which flourished from about 3000 BC to about 500 BC, priests in temple schools taught not only religion but also the principles of writing, the sciences, mathematics, and architecture. Priests became the primary agents of knowledge sharing and therefore became educators. Similarly in India, priests conducted most of the formal education. Beginning in about 1200 BC Indian priests taught the principles of the Veda, the sacred texts of Hinduism, as well as science, grammar, and philosophy.

Knowledge sharing

15

Formal education in China dates to about 2000 BC, though it thrived particularly during the eastern Zhou Dynasty, from 770 to 256 BC. The curriculum stressed philosophy, poetry, and religion, in accord with the teachings of Confucius, Laozi (Lao-tzu), and other philosophers.

APPRECIATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN THE ANCIENT INDIAN SYSTEM OF GURUKUL The Gurukul was an ancient Indian system of knowledge sharing within institutionalized settings. (The word ‘Gu’ means darkness, ‘ru’ means remover. ‘Guru’ means someone who enlightens you besides being a friend, philosopher, and guide. ‘Kul’ means house, home, or household.) In ancient times, Gurukuls were the centers of education, and this system was believed to be the ideal one. A child was admitted to a Gurukul under the aegis of a guru who would spend the next 14 years developing his knowledge, character, and physical skills. The success and worthiness of the system were apparent to the public because it produced great writers, scholars, and philosophers. In the Gurukul system, the relationship between the teacher and the student was not contractual but holistic; in that the class lessons focused on both learning and life. The guru and the students were dedicated to each other. Their living was temperate, wholesome, and humble. Their devotion and dedication naturally provided the pupils with an opportunity for awakening their powers. In fact, the student resident of a Gurukul could seek the guidance of the guru in every difficulty. With the guru’s help, he could face the most difficult predicament undaunted. Much like formal and informal mentoring systems in today’s organizations, the model of a subject matter expert connected with a novice is a powerful knowledge sharing paradigm. The guru–pupil relationship was based on mutual appreciation. The pupil appreciated the guru’s knowledge and the guru appreciated the pupil’s dedication. Underlying the rigor of the Gurukul form was the sense of constant and unconditional affirmation that the pupil received from the guru. The knowledge sharing in this context was absolute. The guru would be extremely happy if the pupil’s knowledge surpassed his, which happened in a few celebrated cases.

APPRECIATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN THE GREEK ‘EXPLOSION’ According to Van Doren (1991), there have been two knowledge explosions in human history. The first began in Greece during the 6th century BC. The

16


second began in Europe four or five centuries ago and is still going on. Knowledge explosions may be seen as ‘intense’ knowledge sharing processes. Their size and scope can produce a certain level of intensity that could last several hundred years, as was the case with the Greek explosion. The knowledge sharing spread quickly and finally affected the entire known world. As Van Doren (1991) points out, ‘it [knowledge sharing] commenced with the discovery of a new communications device and a new method for acquiring knowledge, continued with the help of striking advances in mathematics, and in revolutionary theories about matter and force’ (Van Doren, 1991, p. 29). As practitioners interested in the knowledge economy, we often discuss how to exchange knowledge. This would not have been possible without the importation of papyrus in the 8th century BC. Suddenly, Greek written materials began to be produced, and commercial records and treatises on technical subjects began to be distributed throughout the Greek world. And with it began the creation of inventions and ideas, centered in Miletus, in a climate that looked like that of a university, think-tank, or research and development division of a large corporation (Van Doren, 1991). Around 625 BC, this city gave birth to Thales, who is known as the first philosopher and the first scientist. Since the city of Miletus impacted society by producing such great minds as Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, we should note how Miletus created the right conditions for appreciative knowledge sharing. As Van Doren points out, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were more than just ontologists (experts about being) but had something to say about everything, not just form and matter. In other words, their entire life was a knowledge sharing expedition. In fact, as Van Doren shows, they came from the Sophists, a group of wandering teachers who began to teach in Athens. The Sophists claimed that they could teach any subject or skill to anyone who wished to learn it. They specialized in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric; subjects that eventually formed the core of the liberal arts. They were, in a way, the wandering, and first knowledge management experts because they shared freely what they knew and learned from one another. Socrates sought to discover and teach universal principles of truth, beauty, and goodness. He claimed that true knowledge existed within everyone and needed to be brought to consciousness. His educational method, called the Socratic Method, consisted of asking probing questions that forced his students to think deeply about the meaning of life, truth, and justice. Thus, his full focus was knowledge creation and sharing through dialogue. He claimed that he knew nothing himself and spent his time interrogating his fellow citizens, and especially the professional

Knowledge sharing

17

Sophists, who claimed that they did possess knowledge. If Socrates did not know anything with certainty, he surely knew how to argue and to ask hard questions. Socrates was a great example of knowledge creation through dialogue, though the dialogue expressed itself in a questioning mode. Socrates wrote nothing, but many of his teachings and conversations he had with eminent men and Sophists of his day are recounted in Plato’s dialogues (Van Doren, 1991, p. 43). Plato spent several years traveling about Greece sharing his knowledge. During that time he became a friend of Dion, the tyrant of Syracuse, whom he tried to instruct in philosophy in hopes of making him a ‘philosopher-king’. This was the first known attempt to institutionalize knowledge sharing from top down and to legitimize intellectual inquiry. The second most important effort at institutionalizing knowledge sharing happened in 387 BC when Plato, Socrates’ student, established a school in Athens called the Academy. The Academy was originally a public garden or grove in the suburbs of Athens, in which he opened a school for those inclined to create and share knowledge. Plato believed in an unchanging world of perfect ideas or universal concepts (Van Doren, 1991). He asserted that since true knowledge is the same in every place at every time, education, like truth, should be unchanging. Hence he placed great significance in sharing it with others. The outcome was probably the first book on knowledge management, the Republic, also seen as one of the most notable works of Western philosophy. Plato’s Republic describes a model society, or republic, ruled by highly intelligent philosopher-kings who possess great intellectual capital. Managing intellectual capital is thus not a new challenge, as claimed by several writers in this field. Intellectual capital of some sort existed in all times in history. The only difference is that the magnitude of information is higher today than it was in Plato’s time (at least we think so!). Plato founded the Academy for the systematic conduct of research in philosophy and mathematics, presiding over it the rest of his life. The Academy may be seen as one of the first attempts to institutionalize the creation and sharing of intellectual capital. Plato wrote dialogues which included Socrates as the chief speaker and others in which an ‘Athenian stranger’ takes the leading role, an earlier form of storytelling. The next leader in knowledge sharing was Aristotle, the disciple of Plato. He was sent to the Academy in 367 BC and spent 20 years there as Plato’s most famous pupil. The two men disagreed about many things, which only led to a productive partnership between them and more knowledge creation. Following Plato’s death in 348 or 347 BC, Aristotle left Athens and traveled for 12 years, founding new academies in several cities (Van Doren,

18


1991, p. 43). This was probably one of the most intense and sweeping efforts in knowledge sharing at that time. Returning to Macedonia, he spent three years tutoring Alexander, the son of King Philip. This was similar to the efforts of Plato in reaching out to the powers that be and winning their support in knowledge sharing. In 335 BC, Aristotle founded his own system of knowledge sharing in Athens called the Lyceum. This school, as opposed to the Academy, was devoted to scientific work. Believing that human beings are essentially rational, Aristotle thought people could discover natural laws that governed the universe and then follow these laws in their lives. Aristotle taught us to use reason in the world we see and know: he invented the science of logics, which is the rule of thinking, and invented the idea of the division of the sciences into fields distinguished both by their subject matter and by their methods. When approaching any subject, he always reviewed the contributions of his predecessors and adopted what he thought was valuable. Moreover, he believed in and practiced collaboration, a basic component of knowledge management these days, by creating research teams to study particularly difficult subjects, like botany and current political theory. Most importantly, Aristotle believed that to share knowledge, one must publish. As a result, he wrote and published many books, and they were carried everywhere Greeks went. Even Alexander the Great, who had been his pupil, enlisted himself as one of Aristotle’s researchers, sending back reports to his old teacher, together with zoological and botanical samples for the master to analyze and categorize (Van Doren, 1991). Aristotle’s firm belief in appreciatively sharing whatever knowledge he had led to groundbreaking progress in the dissemination of intellectual capital and even other methods of knowledge sharing. For example, in the 4th century BC Greek orator Isocrates developed yet another method of knowledge sharing which was a method to prepare students to be competent orators. The Greeks created and shared knowledge by having an intellectual curiosity and by traveling to alien places. In addition, they invented organized knowledge itself by their revolutionary discovery of how to learn systematically. There were others as well who joined in this knowledge sharing pursuit but who are not as well known as Plato or Aristotle. For example, anthropologists generally regard Herodotus, a Greek historian who lived in the 400s BC, as the first thinker to write widely on concepts that would later become central to anthropology. In the book History, Herodotus described the cultures of various peoples of the Persian Empire, which the Greeks conquered during the first half of the 400s BC.

19

Knowledge sharing

EARLY MEDIEVAL IRISH MONASTERIES AS CENTERS OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Figure 2.2

Knowledge sharing timeline – Phase 2



1980










Importation of papyrus (800 BC)

Egypt (3,000 BC) Mesopotamia (3,100 BC)

Gurukul (1,200 BC)


Paul McGrath (2005) has insightfully explored the organizational, management, and knowledge sharing practices of early medieval Irish monastic communities (of the late 4th century AD). As he points out, these monasteries were initially established as quiet retreats, places of strict discipline and asceticism, and refuges from worldly concerns. Despite this, the monks had an outward focus to share their secular learning with all levels of Irish life. During this ‘Golden Age’ (McGrath, 2005, p. 549), Ireland was regarded as a knowledge society, because of the peculiar mix of ecclesiastical and secular knowledge focused in and around a small number of monastic settlements. The knowledge they developed, protected, and shared as well as the religious teachers they produced during this unique period had a profound impact on the re-establishment of organized intellectual and cultural life on continental Europe in the early Middle Ages (Bieler, 1966). Despite the spiritual focus, the Irish monasteries quickly developed into complex ecclesiastical centers or cities. The flowering of literature and learning in Ireland is indelibly linked with the development of Christian monastic schools that came to prominence in the second half of the 6th

20


century (McGrath, 2005). Sixth century Ireland provides the best and earliest example of the successful fusion (Ryan, 1972, p. 376) of religious and secular knowledge. Aristocrats, monks, priests, nuns, devout laity, tenants, and artisans congregated and shared knowledge freely within these monastic cities (Ryan, 1972, p. 12). The monks created an environment that appreciated and valued diversity and the result was an interesting combination of higher learning and knowledge sharing. Bieler (1966, p. 215) suggests that this period of Irish Latin culture was remarkably superior to anything that could be found in Saxon England, Lombard Italy, or Merovingian France. This period, sometimes referred to as the ‘wandering Irish scholars’ (O’Croinin, 1995, p. 244), is considered by Bieler (1966) as one of the most important European cultural phenomena of the early Middle Ages. The wandering Irish scholars were spreading knowledge to the masses appreciatively and without judging them. While the greatest impact of the Irish monks was in the field of religion, they and their disciples were deemed to have had a profound influence in all areas of continental contemporary scholarship during this period (McGrath, 2005). From the 6th to the 9th centuries, Ireland was a significant recipient of and contributor to the Christian Latin culture of Europe (O’Fiaich, 1994; Bieler, 1966). What can we learn from these monks who had a profound impact on society and who created a new path of discovery through collaborative learning and mutual respect? Networking One trait that made the Irish monks radically different from the other churches at the time was their organizational model. Their structure was ‘networked’ rather than the traditional hierarchical church model. The early Irish church had abbots/abbesses at its center, while the continental church model was largely bureaucratic since it was headed by bishops in charge of clearly defined territorial dioceses (O’Croinin, 1995, p. 147). The dominant monastic system adopted a network form of structure which is the core architecture of many knowledge management efforts today. This non-territorial system of monastic paruchiae gradually won over the rigid continental diocesan model headed by bishops over the course of the 7th century (Hughes, 1966, p. 124). The monastic communities networked at a number of levels, internally and externally. The community of monks shared knowledge constantly as well as openly through one-on-one teaching sessions and the written word. Because a large part of their job was teaching, they also networked extensively with clients and patrons. While each monastery first relied on its own members, direct kin, clients, and lay allies for survival, there is

Knowledge sharing

21

some evidence of cooperation and networking between monastic sites. Bitel (1990, p. 220) recounts a number of examples of monastic intercommunity alliances formed in the face of an external challenge to the prevailing socio-political order. The primary motivation underlying much of the daily life of a monk was learning, preservation, and the perfection of Christian religious knowledge. This knowledge was then to be applied to the benefit of the wider community through an appreciative process of knowledge sharing. Appreciation of Diversity An unusual feature of the Irish monastic schools was their willingness to appreciate the works of authors who did not share their views. The Irish monks believed that anything that was not absolutely opposed to the teaching of Christianity could be used to enrich existing knowledge. The increasing diversity and non-religious content of much of their work would suggest that they were driven by a thirst for knowledge and a general love of all learning, including the attainment of religious insights. This focus on the collective perfection of knowledge, which clearly required extensive and ongoing interpretation, necessitated a diverse and life-long approach to learning underpinned through the successful fusion of collective teaching and learning and a high degree of individual contemplation (McGrath, 2005). An open or liberal approach to knowledge development and diffusion within the monasteries was compatible with, and was assisted by, a high emphasis on and encouragement of general intellectual pursuits. The focus on teaching, in turn, represented a key method of organizational self-renewal. The majority of the manuscripts produced in the monasteries were the work of school masters and not expert scribes or calligraphers. This shows that knowledge was not located hierarchically but distributed. All knowledge, old and new, was to be freely shared both in written and oral form. There was no advantage to be gained in an individual monk hoarding or hiding knowledge. Indeed, acclaim within monastic schools came with the ability to analyze and impart knowledge, not from its hoarding, an important issue in reinforcing the monastic principle of common property (Graham, 1923, p. 100).

APPRECIATIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN THE MIDDLE AGES During the Middle Ages, or the medieval period (5th–15th centuries), knowledge sharing in Western society was shaped by the Roman Catholic

22


Church. During this time 12 Benedictine monasteries undertook the daunting and most challenging knowledge management task of organizing, sorting, classifying, and copying classical materials handed down from the glorious Greeks and Romans. These monasteries played a significant part in knowledge preservation and sharing. In terms of magnitude or volume, the knowledge management problem they faced was significantly more challenging than that which managers face today. Imagine making sense of centuries of knowledge handed down in unorganized material form. And no computers or scanners!

KNOWLEDGE SHARING BY ARABIC SCHOLARS

Figure 2.3




1980


Rise of modernistic knowledge mgmt (1980)

Reformation Enlightenment Age of Reason (1,700 AD)

Arabic scholars (1,000 AD) Scholasticism 1,000 AD









Gurukul (1,200 BC)


In the 10th and early 11th centuries, knowledge sharing by Arabic scholars further enhanced Western knowledge. The outcomes were new ways of thinking about mathematics, natural science, medicine, and philosophy. The Arabic number system was especially important, and became the foundation of Western arithmetic. Arab scholars also preserved and translated into Arabic the works of such influential Greek scholars as Aristotle,

Knowledge sharing

23

Euclid, Galen, and Ptolemy. Because many of these works had disappeared from Europe by the Middle Ages, they might have been lost forever if Arab scholars such as Avicenna and Averroës had not preserved them. In the 11th century medieval scholars developed a knowledge sharing system called Scholasticism, a philosophical and educational movement that used both human reason and revelations from the Bible (Van Doren, 1991). In a way, this was a serious effort in appreciation. The Scholastics attempted to reconcile Christian theology with Greek philosophy. Scholasticism reached its high point in the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century Dominican theologian who taught at the University of Paris. Aquinas reconciled the authority of religious faith, represented by the Scriptures, with Greek reason, represented by Aristotle. In this great work of appreciative knowledge sharing, Aquinas described the teacher’s vocation as one that combines appreciation, love, and learning (Van Doren, 1991). The work of Aquinas and other Scholastics took place in the medieval institutions of knowledge sharing, the universities. The famous European universities of Paris, Salerno, Bologna, Oxford, Cambridge, and Padua grew out of the Scholastics-led intellectual revival of the 12th and 13th centuries. In a sense, these universities may be seen as a true community of practice because their core value was free, appreciative knowledge sharing.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING DURING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION The religious Reformation of the 16th century marked a decline in the authority of the Catholic Church and contributed to the emergence of the middle classes in Europe. Protestant religious reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther rejected the authority of the Catholic pope and created reformed Churches. In their commitment to convince followers to read the Bible in their native language, reformers extended literacy to the masses, making information more accessible. By doing so they unwittingly generated significant amounts of knowledge sharing to the entire public. They established vernacular primary schools that offered a basic curriculum of reading, writing, arithmetic, and religion for children in their own language.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN THE 17TH CENTURY The work of English philosopher John Locke influenced education in Britain and North America. Locke examined how people acquire ideas in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Locke, 1695a). He asserted

24


that at birth the human mind is a blank slate, or tabula rasa, and empty of ideas. We acquire knowledge, he argued, from the information about the objects in the world that our senses bring to us. We begin with simple ideas and then combine them into more complex ones. Locke believed that individuals acquire knowledge most easily when they first consider simple ideas and then gradually combine them into more complex ones. In Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1695b), Locke recommended practical learning to prepare people to manage their social, economic, and political affairs efficiently. He believed that a sound education should begin in early childhood and insisted that the teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic be gradual and cumulative. Locke’s curriculum included conversational learning of foreign languages (especially French), mathematics, history, physical education, and games.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING DURING THE ENLIGHTENMENT The Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century generated significant improvements in knowledge sharing. During the Enlightenment, also called the Age of Reason, people increased the emphasis on appreciating the value of reasoning or logic with the hope that knowledge acquired and shared by that process would improve society. In fact, the knowledge sharing had a significant impact on the American Revolution (1775–1783) and early educational policy in the United States. For example, American philosopher Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, stressed the importance of knowledge sharing through utilitarian, scientific, and civic education to the masses. This focus on knowledge sharing became the foundation of American society, which resulted in the creation of the largest number of educational institutions in the world. At the same time, thanks to the rise of modernity, knowledge started to become commodified (Lyotard, 1984).

THE DECLINE OF APPRECIATION AND THE RISE OF MODERNISTIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT In 1984, ‘La Condition postmoderne’, originally written in 1979 by Jean Lyotard at the request of the Consel des Universite’s of the Quebec government as an interim ‘report on knowledge’, was translated into English (‘The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge’). It became recognized as a landmark work in consolidating the tenants of postmodernism.

Knowledge sharing

25

Lyotard argues that we live in a ‘postindustrial society and postmodern culture’ (Lyotard, 1984, p. 73), where postmodernism means a general process of delegitimation, a loss of confidence in the modern idea of progress and emancipation. ‘Postmodern’ is defined as an ‘incredulity towards grand narratives’ (Lyotard, 1984, p. 8), and Lyotard thinks that this is a general cultural condition in societies which have entered the postindustrial age. According to him, modern science is legitimated by two kinds of meta-narratives of progress: the meta-narrative of emancipation and the meta-narrative of unified knowledge. Examples of the former are 1) the Enlightenment narrative of emancipation from serfdom through knowledge and equality; 2) the capitalist narrative of emancipation from poverty through industrial development; or 3) the Marxist narrative of emancipation from exploitation and alienation through socialization of labor. The latter, the meta-narrative of unification of knowledge, is best represented in organizational sciences in the Parsonian systems theory which neglected pluralism, or in Marxism which overstretched dialectics. Lyotard (1984) defines as modern ‘any science that legitimates itself with reference to a meta-discourse, . . . such as the dialectics of spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth’ (Lyotard, 1984, p. xxiii). In primitive societies such as the Cashinahua Indians of South America – which is Lyotard’s favorite example – functions of narratives are embodied in clear sets of rules about who has the right and responsibility to speak and listen. In this group, the storyteller begins his narrative by identifying himself with his Cashinahua name, thereby affirming his tribal authenticity and consequent right to speak. In the process, he also evokes the listener’s responsibility to listen. Lyotard considers this as an example of self-legitimation, established by telling the story in a certain way. A set of pragmatic rules that constitutes the social bond is transmitted through these narratives. The strength of this narrative form, or meta-discourse, lies in its ability to ground the very rules of the language game upon which its existence is predicated: narratives ‘define what has the right to be said and done in the culture in question, and since they are themselves a part of that culture, they are legitimated by the simple fact that they do what they do’ (Lyotard, 1984, p. 23). Lyotard (1984) asserts that in the end it is by these very narratives alone that science is given authority and purpose. He identifies two forms of narratives to which science has recourse – political and philosophical – and maintains that these narratives are teleological because inherent in them is the notion of a journey toward a final goal. They are also ‘meta-narratives’, that is narratives which subordinate, organize, and account for other narratives to the extent that every other local narrative, whether it be the narrative of a discovery in science or the narrative of personal growth and

26


self-actualization, is given credence by the way it represents and confirms the grand narrative of progress.

APPRECIATION AND GRAND NARRATIVES The process of appreciation that was the foundation of knowledge sharing cracked under the weight of modernism. The goal of the modernist system is to obtain the best equation between the input and output (Lyotard, 1984). In that context, knowledge is transformed into productive forces for capital and subsumed under the principle of ‘efficiency’ and ‘performativity.’ This has resulted in the ‘commodification’ of knowledge. Lyotard stated that science has been transformed into production forces. To quote him, ‘knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its “use-value” ’ (Lyotard, 1984, pp. 4–5). The best equation between input and output is what is required in knowledge management. Lyotard calls this ‘performativity’ of sciences which displaces the Enlightenment project of truth for humanity. Lyotard characterizes this as a process of ‘commodification’. His own words make this explicit: A technical apparatus requires an investment; but since it optimizes the efficiency of the task to which it is applied, it also optimizes the surplus-value derived from this improved performance. All that is needed is for the surplusvalue to be realized, in other words, for the product of the task performed to be sold . . . A portion of the sale is recycled into a research fund dedicated to further performance improvement. It is at this precise moment that science becomes a force of production, in other words a moment in the circulation of capital. (Lyotard, 1984, p. 45)

It is not surprising that commodification became the driving force of modernity which resulted from the collapse of religious authority and the rise of a rationalized, bureaucratic social order. Separate groups of professionals, each with their own special expertise and technical abilities, were granted responsibility for independent areas of activity. Scientists oversee nature, critics determine taste, lawyers administer justice, physicians maintain health, therapists and the clergy provide psychological well being, and so on. The central assumption of this era was that specialization and rationalization ‘would promote not only the control of natural forces, but would also further understanding of the world and of the self, would promote moral progress, the justice of institutions, and even the happiness of human beings’ (Habermas, 1984, p. 9).

Knowledge sharing

27

THE NARRATIVE OF PROGRESS IN MODERNISTIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Modernity’s version of knowledge management is solidly based on the notion of knowledge as progressive. Research creates knowledge on how to increase organizational efficiency/effectiveness, improve organizational climate, generate more participation in decision making, create egalitarian communication structures and democratic leadership styles, and, above all, sustain a better quality of work life. According to Cheal (1990), modernity is a project, in which the goal of progress is achieved through the managed transformation of social institutions. The project of modernity dominated the classical formulations of knowledge management primarily because its theories were developed during the era of modernism in a world dominated by industrialization, technology, secularism, individualism, and democracy. The industrial organization was perceived as the source of human unity and progress (Comte, 1970). For example, Daniel Bell’s (1976) thesis of modern (postindustrial) society is that it is ‘organized around knowledge for the purpose of social control and the directing of innovation and change . . .’ (Bell, 1976, p. 20). Theoretical knowledge is supposed to offer a ‘methodological promise’ for management of ‘organized complexity’ in the modern world. Intellectual technologies available for this, according to Bell, are information theory, cybernetics, decision theory, game theory, utility theory, and so on. Their function is definition of rational action and the identification of means to achieve this goal. Above all, it is ‘performance’ rather than size that distinguishes modern organizations (Bell, 1976); this is expressed in the ‘economizing’ mode, as seen in productivity. The proliferation of ideas on knowledge management reveals that the tendency is to treat knowledge as a thing that can be possessed, measured, stored, processed, and readily distributed to people who are designated as ‘users’ of knowledge. In this case, knowledge is identified as something physical and is described as an asset. Organizations are urged to leverage their intellectual capital by treating knowledge as yet another commodity that can be exchanged and managed. Knowledge management is rooted in many disciplines, including economics, education, information management, organizational behavior, psychology, and sociology. It embraces the perspectives developed in these subject areas, but operates from the basic premise of the tacit nature of knowledge. Tacit knowledge is personal knowledge rooted in individual experience and involving personal belief, perspective, and values. Philosopher of science Michael Polanyi (1967) famously characterized tacit knowledge as that ‘which we know but cannot tell’. It is now understood

28


that a key aspect of knowledge management should be about finding ways to apprehend such tacit knowledge possessed by long time employees, customers, clients, or other stakeholders. Typically, people may not want to share what they know for various reasons, such as feeling possessive about their knowledge and the fear that once shared, they may not be wanted by the company anymore. Later in the book, this question of how to help share the tacit knowledge organizationwide will be discussed using the principles of appreciation and the methodology of ASK. Knowledge is dynamically embedded in networks and processes as well as in the human beings that constitute and use them. In other words, people typically acquire knowledge from established organizational routines, the entirety of which is usually impossible for any one person to know. The acquiring of knowledge is, in essence, a mutually constructed activity. To build it alone and to keep it to one’s self is to create a singleness of mind – taking away the usefulness of the knowledge, wisdom, and aspirations of the ‘knower(s).’ Well known social scientist Kenneth Gergen suggests, ‘[I]f we are to generate meaning together we must develop smooth and reiterative patterns of interchange – a dance in which we move harmoniously together’ (Gergen, 1999, p. 60). He goes on to suggest that in order to mutually construct our world, we must engage in coordinating discourse where there is a significance of self-expression, active affirming of each other, and regular recreation of our worlds (Gergen, 1999, pp. 158–64). ASK must become an integral part of organizing – whether in the workplace or otherwise, with an invitation to bring together and share knowledge in order to maximize the value of knowledge management.

RECLAIMING APPRECIATION IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT There has been a gradual attempt to reclaim appreciation in managing knowledge since the mid 1980s. Efforts in this regard began indirectly through an approach called Appreciative Inquiry that began at the Case Western Reserve University in 1986. Appreciative Inquiry (discussed in more detail in the following chapter) is an organization development approach, and therefore not specifically focused on knowledge management. Thatchenkery (2005) has used some of the Appreciative Inquiry principles for knowledge management and created a methodology called Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge.

29

Figure 2.4



1980






Irish monasteries (400 AD) 0


Greek ‘explosion’ (600 BC)

2nd European ‘explosion’ (300 BC) Orator school begins (400 BC)



Gurukul (1,200 BC)


Knowledge sharing


NONAKA AND KONNO’S KNOWLEDGE CONVERSION PROCESS Nonaka and Konno explore the knowledge conversion process by tracing the evolution of knowledge from tacit to explicit back to tacit, or vice versa (Figure 2.5). Knowledge is transferred by first sharing what is known (socialization), then translating what is known to a reusable format (externalization), then understanding that knowledge is applicable to a new environment (combination), and finally using that knowledge in a different setting (internalization). This knowledge spiral continues as the knowledge is transferred from setting to setting. During a speech given at the Buckman Laboratories which bear his name, Bob Buckman made a statement that approximately 90 percent of knowledge is in the heads of people (tacit) and 10 percent is on paper (explicit). Managers spend approximately 75 percent of their effort on that 10 percent. Buckman’s statement points out that most of the knowledge lies in the socialization quadrant of Figure 2.5, but yet that is the quadrant that is least effectively accessed. Perhaps people do not have the tools they need to enable effective ‘socialization’. This is where ASK first time comes in. It plants the

30

Appreciative inquiry and knowledge management Tacit knowledge

Tacit knowledge

Tacit knowledge

Socialization Meetings and discussions Storytelling

Externalization Write a report

Tacit knowledge

Internalization Learn from a report

Combination Email a report

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Figure 2.5 Knowledge socialization – the spiral evolution of knowledge conversion and self-transcending process (Nonaka and Konno, 1998) seeds to enable effective storytelling, a commonly accepted knowledge sharing practice expanded by Steven Denning (2000) and others who are fond of the narrative approaches to organization studies. Storytelling enables socialization, which creates a space for that tacit-to-tacit exchange to happen. In his book The Springboard, Steve Denning (2000) has given a useful description of his quest for convincing key stakeholders of the need for storytelling for change in organizations. Denning uses storytelling as a knowledge management tool and as an organizational change tool. His approach is to share a story to create the space for the client to imagine what might be in their organization. According to Denning (2000, p. 12), the storyteller skilfully gets into the minds of key stakeholders and richly portrays how they feel and think in the process of creating and recreating their organization. He shares stories of events that are already working well in the organization. This creates a framework to generate more ideas of what else could easily work well in the organization. Denning talks about a specific type of story that enables change called a springboard story. A springboard story is a ‘story that provides the kind of plausibility, coherence, and reasonableness that enables people to make sense of immensely complex changes that are being discussed. The story holds the disparate elements together long enough to energize and guide action, plausibly enough to allow people to make retrospective sense of whatever happens, and engagingly enough that they will contribute their own input into creating the future of the organization’ (Denning, 2000, p. 54). Storytelling can create a powerful collaborative tool because it allows people to make sense of something that on the surface may not make sense. People can

Knowledge sharing

31

connect with a story in whatever way they know how. They can take with them precisely what they need to enable the change in their environment. One of the springboard stories that Denning uses is the story of a healthcare worker in Zambia: Clearly the 21st century is going to be different. But how? The story of the health worker in Zambia offers the possibility of viewing the future, which, I suggest, is going to be like today. Thus in June 1995, a health worker in Kamana, Zambia, logged on the CDC [Center for Disease Control] web site and got the answer to a question on how to treat malaria. This story happened, not in June 2015, but in June 1995. This is not a rich country: it is not even the capital of the country: it is 600 km away. But the most striking picture is this: our organization [the World Bank] isn’t in it. Our organization doesn’t have the know-how and expertise in such a way that someone like the health worker in Zambia can have access to it. But just imagine if it had. (Denning, 2000, p. 41)

This story helps convey examples of how the World Bank where he used to work can get involved in circumstances around the world. By sharing it, people put themselves in a place of possibility in addition to focusing on the organization they know on a day-to-day basis. Springboard stories also enable ‘a leap in understanding by the audience . . . A springboard story has an impact not so much through transferring large amounts of information, but through catalyzing understanding. It enables listeners to visualize from a story in one context what is involved in a large-scale transformation in an analogous context’ (‘What is a springboard story? How does it work?’ available at: www.stevedenning.com/ springboard_story.html, accessed September 20, 2006). His story paints a picture of what is currently happening and also paints a picture of what could be. The picture is tangible because it is based on something that is already working. The springboard story can be a useful way to inspire innovation and help understand change.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING CONTINUES As you can see, knowledge has been shared throughout time. It is human to connect with others, by sharing stories, education, mentoring, and other mechanisms that we have discovered throughout time. In the next chapter, we will explore appreciation, its roots, and meaning.

3. The generative potential of appreciative processes It is said that in the Babemba tribe of South Africa, when a person acts criminally or irresponsibly, he is placed in the center of the village, all by himself. The men, women, and children in the village gather in a large circle around the accused. Everyone, including the tribal elders and peers, is encouraged to share stories of the accused where he did something positive and exemplary. His good deeds, strengths, and kindnesses are brought to focus intentionally during the sharing. The tribal ceremony ends when everyone has exhausted the positive feedback she or he can muster about the person in the center. In the end, the person is welcomed back to the community through celebratory rituals (Walker, 2001). While this tradition, deeply embedded in the unique cultural and social context of the tribe, may not be easily replicated elsewhere, it still reveals an important lesson about the power of reframing. By intentionally focusing on the person’s positive attributes, a reality different from the ‘problem person’ is created. The tradition itself transforms the person. Traditional applications of organizational change and knowledge management rely on finding and solving problems. The notion is that organizational systems have inherent flaws that need to be fixed through systematic problem solving and interventions. While this sort of deficit and critical thinking can be valuable and informative, it often leaves groups of people feeling frustrated (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). Appreciative processes have the potential to reframe these problems into opportunities and possibilities by intentionally focusing on what is present as opposed to what is missing.

WHAT IS APPRECIATION? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines appreciation as: ap·pre·ci·a·tion (-prsh-shn) n. 1. Recognition of the quality, value, significance, or magnitude of people and things. 32

The generative potential of appreciative processes 2. 3. 4. 5.

33

A judgment or opinion, especially a favorable one. An expression of gratitude. Awareness or delicate perception, especially of aesthetic qualities or values. A rise in value or price, especially over time.

Appreciation is feeling validated for our opinions, our efforts, and the unique qualities we bring to bear on a situation. In appreciation, there is also a deliberate action of selectivity and judgment. The perceiver is choosing to look at some stimuli intently and in the process see them more fully. When changing the way that we perceive a new situation, we have the power to switch the deficit thinking that is inherent in an organization. The way we are trained makes it easy to focus on the negative and what is not working in an organization. Venting may be appropriate for a small amount of time because it allows for release and sense making. The real power from venting comes from the time when the venting turns to empowered actions. It may seem simple and obvious that people who appreciate each other in the workplace will have a better working relationship than those who have an adversarial relationship. So what then makes it so hard to create an appreciative environment? Is it that we do not accept that as humans we have fundamental needs or that we should not be concerned with those needs in the workplace? Over the course of this book we will reconcile how to meld our innate appreciative needs with our critical problem solving minds. Being appreciative is harder than finding problems. To be appreciative, we must experience a situation, accept the situation, make sense of the situation (pros/cons), and do a bit of mental gymnastics to understand the situation with an appreciative lens. Not only that, the appreciative lens that we put on the situation impacts our next experience as well. When people interact with each other on a frequent basis, they are going to experience conflict. To think that organizational problems can be fixed with a one-size-fits-all paradigm would trivialize humans’ fundamental nature. Appreciation, if nothing else, helps us admit and accept that we may disagree with our co-workers’ philosophies but can appreciate these same co-workers for their strengths (even though those very strengths are the ones that bring out our weaknesses). There are various ways to understand the power of appreciative processes. Using the model of self-fulfilling prophecy is one. In Roman mythology, Galatea was the name of a statue of a beautiful woman that was brought to life by Venus, goddess of love, in response to the prayers of the sculptor Pygmalion, who had fallen in love with his creation. We have chosen the term Galatea effect to underscore the fact that it is the beauty of the statue that created the desire in Pygmalion. In the knowledge sharing context, knowledge enablers are like Galatea, having highly desirable and attractive attributes. Once people imagine these desirable enablers, they see

34


more in their work settings. The adoption of the Pygmalion/Galatea effect to this aspect of appreciative knowledge management creates significant differences in the way people feel about their capacity to create change in organizations. Essentially, once the energizing properties or knowledge enablers are correctly identified, building on them is possible because each individual imagines the ideal future as if it has already happened. In the play My Fair Lady, George Bernard Shaw created a character named Professor Henry Higgins who makes a wager that he can take a poor flower girl and train her to be a lady at the embassy ball. Once Professor Higgins treats the flower girl, Ms Doolittle, like a lady, she starts to behave like a lady. And before you know it, she becomes a lady. During the 1964–1965 school years, Harvard’s Robert Rosenthal conducted an experiment to see whether a teacher’s expectations impacted students’ performance. The teacher was given the names of the ‘gifted’ students, who were, in fact, no smarter than the rest of the class. At the end of the term, those students who were identified as gifted, performed significantly better on the exams than did their peers. In a story widely circulated among organizational development practitioners, a manager was hired to improve the morale of a small work unit which had various performance issues as well as low morale and team cohesion. The newly hired manager’s boss informed him (the manager) that several managers before him had already tried various approaches to improve the morale and team productivity but nothing seemed to have worked. The boss hoped that the new manager would do something unique based on his reputation that would change the behaviors of the workers in the unit. A year later, the executive met with the manager and commented very favorably that the morale of the team had improved significantly and based on his records the performance of the team had gone up. While complimenting the manager, he asked how he had done something that most had failed in the past. The manager responded that he did not have to do anything because he learned that they were a group of intelligent workers who were not challenged enough. When asked to elaborate the manager replied that while checking the personal files of the employees, he learned that their IQs were in the range of 110–130. The manager determined that what the staff needed were more challenging tasks, respect, and an appreciation of their intelligence and performance capabilities. The manager also created new work procedures whereby the staff would be autonomous and responsible for accomplishing many of the tasks. The manager also showed a great deal of respect for the staff and treated them like they were his colleagues, capable of living up to whatever was asked of them. At this point a surprised executive pointed out that the numbers he saw on top of his files were the file folder numbers and not the IQ!

The generative potential of appreciative processes

35

While it is not easy to confirm the veracity of this story, it can be noted that it is not very different from the original Rosenthal effect experiment. Just as the school teacher in the Rosenthal experiment thought that some of her elementary school kids were highly intelligent, this manager believed that some of the employees were highly intelligent. An expectation can change how a manager relates to his subordinates. Just as in the Rosenthal experiment it is also easy to see how the staff would have reacted differently to this new manager, when they observed that he treated them differently and with more respect. Therefore the story plays out very well within the existing literature of self-fulfilling prophecy and the Pygmalion effect. Consciously or not, we establish expectations of people, places, and things and we communicate these expectations by verbal and non-verbal cues. The Pygmalion effect is an important key to creating and improving the workforce. The results of these studies are profound because employees can create their own reality for each other and the organization. As these theories and cases show, expectations can create a different reality.

VICKERS AND THE HERMENEUTICS CIRCLE OF APPRECIATION The term ‘hermeneutics’ comes from the classical Greek verb Hermeneuein, to interpret. During the 17th century, hermeneutic study emerged as a discipline devoted to establishing guidelines for the proper interpretation of Biblical scripture (the Protestant Reformation created a need to interpret the scriptures without church authority). Since then, hermeneutic study has evolved into a form of inquiry primarily concerned with the processes by which human beings interpret or discover the meaning of human action in general and linguistic expression in particular. The theory of hermeneutics explores the concept that texts are understood differently by different people at different times. The hermeneutics circle indicates that the interpretive scheme one brings to a situation significantly influences what one will find. Seeing the world is always an act of judgment. One can take an appreciative judgment or a critical or deficit oriented judgment. In general, societal discourses are geared toward a problem solving kind of dialogue thanks to the deficit oriented critical thinking cultivated in social sciences. Geoffrey Vickers, a professional manager turned social scientist, was the first to talk about appreciation in a systemic way. Peter Checkland, a professor of systems at the University of Lancaster, is a well known interpreter of Vickers’ work and has simplified his abstract writing. According to Checkland (1986, p. 3), when Sir Geoffrey Vickers retired from 40 years of

36


full-time professional life he wanted to make sense of all his experiences by constructing ‘an epistemology which will account for what we manifestly do when we sit round board tables or in committee rooms’. The outcome was a number of books and papers unique to the field of management thinking. Vickers’ main contribution is that of ‘appreciation’ and the ‘appreciative process’ which constitutes a system. An appreciative system may be that of an individual, group, or an organization. In explaining appreciation, Vickers used systems thinking, which provided basic concepts to describe the circular human processes of perceiving, judging, and acting. Vickers’ work was thus part of the ‘soft systems’ approach within the systems movement, but was carried out independently. However, it is possible to describe soft systems methodology as an operationalization of the process Vickers calls appreciation. Vickers focused on five key elements of appreciation: ● ●

●

● ●

The experience of day-to-day life (similar to Schutz’s Lebenswelt) as a flux of interacting events and ideas. Separate judgments about what goes in the present or moment (‘reality judgments’) and a value judgment about what ought to be good or bad, both of which are historically influenced. An insistence on ‘relationship maintaining’ (or norm seeking) as a richer concept of human action than the popular notion of goal seeking. A concept of ‘action judgments’ stemming from reality and value judgments. Action, as a result of appreciation, contributes to the flux of events and ideas, as does the mental act of appreciation itself. This leads to the notion that the cycle of judgments and actions is organized as a system.

In other words, as humans we are in a state of flux. We judge the events we experience based on our individual history. We make meaning based on the interactions with other humans to enrich our lives. Our judgments, relationships, and values dictate how we act in subsequent events. By framing our perceptions and judgments on appreciation, we can change our behavior. We can change the way we hoard knowledge to a philosophy of sharing knowledge.

THE MODEL OF THE APPRECIATIVE SYSTEM In order to model appreciation, we must break down the act of appreciation into steps. Schutz (1966) describes appreciation as an interacting flux of events and ideas unfolding through time. We have the ability to select and choose

37


Time

Appreciation

Action

Figure 3.1 The general structure of an appreciative system (Checkland, 1985) what reality we perceive from the event based on our judgments and values. The perception we have of the event impacts the next event that we experience, thus creating a recursive loop. Figure 3.1 visually depicts how appreciation impacts action based on the flux of events and ideas throughout time. Vickers breaks down the decision making components even further: Those who are engaged in a course of decision-making soon become aware that each decision is conditioned not only by the concrete situation in which it is taken but also by the sequence of past decisions; and that their new decisions in their turn will influence future decisions not only by their effect on the history of event but also by the precedents which they set and the changes which they make in the way decision makers in the future will see, interpret and respond to event, a separate development which for the moment I will label the history of ideas. Thus human history is a two-stranded rope; the history of events and the history of ideas develop in intimate relation with each other yet each according to its own logic and its own time scale; and each conditions both its own future and the future of the other. (1965, p. 15)

As you can see in Figures 3.2 and 3.3, in any situation a person has the choice to perceive the relevant ‘facts’ based on their interest or concerns. Once that person has extracted their facts, they place a value judgment on the situation (good/bad, acceptable/unacceptable) and therefore create an action based on their value judgment.

MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS AND APPRECIATIVE PROCESSES Abraham Maslow (1954) is known for establishing the theory of a hierarchy of needs. The logic behind the hierarchy of needs model is that

38


Interests, concerns Perceived ‘facts’ of the situation relevant to interests, concerns

Selected ‘facts’ relevant to the current situation

Significance of the ‘facts’ (good/bad, acceptable/ unacceptable) in terms of regulatable relationships

Standards of fact and value: good/ bad, acceptable/ unacceptable

Figure 3.2

Hypothetical forms of relevant relationships

Selected form of relevant relationships deemed good enough in the current situation

The process of appreciation (Checkland, 1986)

human beings are motivated by needs. Certain lower level needs should be satisfied before the higher needs can be satisfied. Maslow studied exemplary people such as Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt as well as the mentally ill, like many other scientists of his time, such as Seligman. He pointed out that people are basically trustworthy, self-protecting, selfgoverning, and tend toward growth and love. According to Maslow, there are certain types of deficiency needs – physiological, safety, love, and esteem – that must be satisfied before a person can act unselfishly. As we satisfy these needs, we are moving toward growth and self-actualization. The hierarchy is displayed in Figure 3.4. Most knowledge workers today have some or most of their deficiency needs satisfied, and are therefore focusing on the needs of self-esteem and self-actualization. However, organizations (comprising groups of knowledge workers) are lower on the hierarchy chain. Appreciation provides us with the means for groups of people to go up the pyramid. It provides us with the foundation required to create a safe environment to pave the way for and encourage love, self-esteem, and self-actualization.

39

Figure 3.3

From previous cycle Selected form of relevant relationships deemed good enough in the current situation

Significance of the ‘facts’ (good/bad, acceptable/ unacceptable) in terms of regulatable relationships

Perceived ‘facts’ of the situation relevant to interests, concerns

The process of appreciation (Checkland, 1986)

Standards of fact and value: good/ bad, acceptable/ unacceptable

Hypothetical forms of relevant relationships

Selected ‘facts’ relevant to the current situation

Interests, concerns

Decision on how to act to maintain, modify, or elude relevant relationships

Action to maintain, modify, or elude relevant relationships

To (modified) standards in the next cycle of appreciation

40


Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs SELFACTUALIZATION Pursue Inner Talent, Creativity, Fulfillment

Higher Order Needs (Like Knowledge Management)

Appreciation

Lower Order Needs

SELF-ESTEEM Achievement, Mastery Recognition, Respect BELONGING – LOVE Friends, Family, Spouse, Lover SAFETY Security, Stability, Freedom from Fear PHYSIOLOGICAL Food, Water, Shelter, Warmth

Figure 3.4

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1954)

RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE APPROACHES TO KNOWLEDGE SHARING Two ways to differentiate knowledge management approaches (paradigms) are to delineate them into retrospective and prospective practices. In the former, the practice is to look back at what happened with a more or less critical and analytical mindset, like a dissection in a biology laboratory, a postmortem of an event, or a case study. This approach has certain merits, is clearly the dominant approach, and has been historically used in a wide range of fields. Examples are the case study of a patient in a medical school, the After Action Review that the US Army uses immediately after a training or practice engagement in the field, and the well-known case study approach used in business schools worldwide. The retrospective approach in knowledge management looks at what is wrong in an organization regarding how knowledge is utilized, isolates the causes for the broken state of affairs, and comes up with remedial actions or ‘fixes’ to correct the inefficiencies in the system. While appearing to be objective, data based, and tangible, the retrospective approach tends to generate costly and damaging fissures in the morale and


41

organizational climate. It is extremely difficult to engage in an analysis of what went wrong without assigning responsibility. As soon as that process begins, the organizational climate is polluted with a wave of the ‘blame game’. The prospective approach, on the other hand, does not analyze what went wrong but considers what needs to happen for an individual, group, or organization to reach a desired state or vision. Applied to the knowledge management domain, this approach will raise the question ‘what needs to happen in this organization for people to share their knowledge?’ The prospective approach purposely focuses on a new and ever-changing future of information exchange, as well as increasing opportunities for harmonious knowledge sharing at every level in an organization. Though not intentional, the retrospective approach appears to reproduce key features of the ‘learned helplessness’ phenomenon popularized by well known psychologist Martin Seligman in 1965. In the beginning of his experiments, laboratory dogs were given an electric shock, which caused them to try to escape the shock by jumping over to another chamber, only to find that the bar was too high. After a few repetitions the height of the bar was reduced significantly so that any dog could easily jump over. But, to Seligman’s surprise, the dogs did not and instead chose to resign themselves to continuing to receive the shocks and be in pain. Based on subsequent more rigorous research, Seligman argued that exposure to uncontrollable negative events can lead people to develop a belief in their inability to control important outcomes, and consequently a loss of motivation and failure to act. The internal dialogue that one cannot control important events tends to lead to lowered persistence, motivation, self-esteem, and initiative. Two decades later another event prompted Seligman to look at the experiments in a different way. In his best selling book Learned Optimism (1991), Seligman showed that based on individual explanatory styles one person may see despair in a situation while another sees hope. He researched entrepreneurs who, unlike his dogs, did not give up after several successive failures but rejuvenated each time, learning from their mistakes and eventually succeeding in their businesses. Seligman showed that such people continuously reframed their reality into possibilities as opposed to limitations, eventually developing ‘learned optimism’. The retrospective, problem solving approach to knowledge management bears an uncanny resemblance to learned helplessness. In the retrospective approach, the consultant looks at the causes of the failure in knowledge sharing. Using the same logic as in Seligman’s experiment, a consultant could conclude that the real cause was the height of the bar. In the prospective approach, the questions will be about the modalities of reframing. How can the client system look at the current status of knowledge sharing using

42


an explanatory style of learned optimism so that they may see the organizational environment as full of possibilities? Yet another distinguishing feature of the retrospective approach to knowledge management is the prolific presence of defensive routines, an organizational process first articulated by the well known organizational learning theorist Chris Argyris (1990). A defensive routine is an institutionalized, ongoing, and routinized mixed message about which discussion is taboo. It is an elaborate double-bind whose purpose is to prevent embarrassment, threat, and awkward situations, to maintain the status quo, and avoid unwanted change. To demonstrate defensive routines, Argyris (1990) asked a group of executives to describe a key problem in their organization and to narrate an imaginary meeting in which they were talking to the person of their choice about the problem and solutions. On the left side of a split page he asked them to write what they would actually say and on the right side the ideas and feelings they would have but not communicate for whatever reason. Argyris was struck by the discrepancy between the two and felt that what was not shared was just as significant as what was. The bigger the discrepancy, the stronger the defensive routines. Because organizational defensive routines are intended to avoid the experience of embarrassment, they make it unlikely that the organization will ever genuinely address the contributing factors for the lack of knowledge sharing. This would be true even if external knowledge management consultants were brought in. In the prospective approach to knowledge sharing, the consultant does not try to solve or fix the defensive routines. Instead, the focus is on creating open communication, dialogue, genuine inquiry. In the prospective approach, the consultant is not interested in identifying or isolating the defensive routines because, based on her training in social constructionist theories, she knows that paying attention to such constructs would only bring them to life with increased intensity. The more the participants talk about the defensive routines, the more they recognize them. The outcome may be a stage of learned helplessness where they discover that no matter how hard they try, the roadblocks are there to stay, or that they wouldn’t have much influence in doing anything about them. The alternative approach in ASK is therefore to focus on the harmony or flow rather than defensive routines. By intentionally probing for solid data where knowledge sharing happened, the prospective ASK approach isolates the knowledge enablers rather than the disablers. Table 3.1 outlines the main points of the retrospective and prospective approaches to knowledge management. It will be obvious to the reader that one is based on a deficit view of knowledge management and the other on a more affirmative view.


43

Table 3.1 Contrasting retrospective and prospective approaches to knowledge management Retrospective ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

Problem solving Identification of problem Highlight what is broken Identify knowledge management problems: What makes people hoard knowledge? Analyze causes Generate possible solutions Action planning and treatment Fixing as intervention Looking at what is missing Knowledge management as a problem to be solved Degenerative diagnostic focus Reactive, knee-jerk response Focus on what’s urgent Leverage learned helplessness Passive, cognitive re-affirming of status quo and current reality Modernistic Reductionistic Defensive routines Managing from the past

Prospective ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge Valuing and appreciating ‘what is’ Affirm what is working Identify knowledge enablers: What makes people share knowledge? Envision what is possible Generate future-present scenarios Innovating/realizing what will be Affirmation as intervention Looking at what is present Knowledge management as an opportunity to be embraced Generative prognostic focus Proactive, reflective response Focus on what’s important Leverage learned optimism Active, intentional cognitive reframing of current reality Postmodern Social constructionist Open communication/dialogue Managing for the future

TWO APPROACHES TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT In addition to his work on learned helplessness (mentioned above), Martin Seligman has another project: the study of what he calls ‘positive psychology’. According to him, psychology as a discipline is focused on deficits. Psychology journals have published 45,000 articles in the last 30 years on depression, but only 400 on joy. Seligman himself had a celebrated career as a result of his famous theory on ‘learned helplessness’. All that changed when a businessman on a plane trip asked him about studying optimism instead of pessimism. That was a turning point for Seligman – his later best seller (1991) was called Learned Optimism! According to Seligman (1991), when psychology began developing as a profession, it had three goals: to identify genius, to heal the sick, and to help

44


people live better, happier lives. Over the last century, however, it has focused almost entirely on pathology and deficits, following the science of medicine, itself structured around disease, as its model. Psychology, Seligman says, has been negative ‘essentially for 100 years’. Theories have generally focused on damage, as have techniques for intervention. ‘Social science has believed negative things were authentic and human strengths were coping mechanisms’, Seligman says. The former American Psychological Association president is determined to change that by focusing on the three central aspects of people’s lives: love, work, and play. ‘Rather than spending $10 million on, say, phobias and fears, study courage’, he argues. Along with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, well known for studies on the psychology of optimal experience, or ‘flow’ (1990), Seligman has created a research team of young and promising psychologists to work on these aspects.

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT In the late 1980s a group of organizational development and psychology professionals at Case Western Reserve University developed a new model for looking at organizational analysis, focusing on the positive aspects of the organization rather than the negative (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). This innovative action research model was developed with the idea that it would take the best ideas of the organizations and attempt to reinforce and build upon them in a positive way while working within the current culture of the organization. Appreciative Inquiry attempts to determine the organization’s core values (or life giving forces). AI seeks the best of ‘what is’ in order to provide an impetus for imagining ‘what might be’ (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). The basic rationale of Appreciative Inquiry is to begin with a grounded observation of the best of what is, articulate what might be, ensure the consent of those in the system to what should be, and collectively experiment with what can be. The concept of AI is important in offering an approach that seeks and discovers what a group does well and what enables a particular group to work at its best. It has been suggested that this affirmative approach expands those competencies to a new level of excellence. It has been emphasized that, contrary to traditional gap-analysis consulting, which starts at a deficit point and works to zero, Appreciative Inquiry purposely begins with the positive and moves to the extraordinary. In their 1987 publication ‘Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life’, Cooperrider and Srivastva reason that organizations are not ‘problems to


45

be solved’ but are centers of infinite human capacity – ultimately unpredictable, unknowable, or a ‘mystery alive’. They prove that human systems grow in the direction of what they focus on; therefore, let us all search for the true, the good, the better, and the possible in human systems. The article represented the beginning of the transition from thinking of AI as just a theory-building approach to seeing its potential as a full blown intervention framework (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). Most tools of organizational analysis are rooted in a logical positivist paradigm that treats organizational reality as something fundamentally pre-existing. On the other hand, according to Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987), Appreciative Inquiry is based on a socio-rationalist paradigm which treats organizational reality as a social construction and a product of human imagination. Reality is seen as a linguistic achievement made possible by our engagement in a social discourse. Appreciative Inquiry is both a method of action research and a theory of how organizational realities evolve. Taking the socio-rationalist point of view associated with the sociology of knowledge school, Cooperrider and Srivastva (1987) argue that there is nothing inherently deterministic about any particular social form, no historically valid principles to be uncovered, even though mainstream social science tends to study organizations as if they are tangible forms waiting to be molded. While logical positivism assumes that social phenomena are sufficiently enduring, stable, and replicable to allow for lawful principles, socio-rationalism contends that social order is fundamentally unstable and organic. ‘Social phenomena are guided by cognitive heuristics, limited only by human imagination: the social order is a subject matter capable of infinite variation through the linkage of ideas and action’ (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987, p. 139). Thus, the creation of new and evocative theories of groups and organizations is a powerful way to aid in their change and development. Appreciative Inquiry ‘refers to both a search for knowledge and a theory of intentional collective action which are designed to help evolve the normative vision and will of a group, organization, or society as a whole’ (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987, p. 159). In a later writing on the affirmative basis of organizing, Cooperrider (1990) proposes that all groups have images of themselves that underlay self-organizing processes and that social systems have a natural tendency to evolve toward the most positive images held by their members. Conscious evolution of positive imagery, therefore, is a viable option for evolving the group as a whole. According to Cooperrider (1990), the greatest obstacle to the well being of an ailing group is the dis-affirmative projection that currently guides it. When organizations find that attempts to fix problems create more problems, or the same problems never go away (Senge, 1990), it is a clear signal

46


of the inadequacy of the organization’s current images or projections of who it is. In that context, Appreciative Inquiry is an attempt to co-create a shared consensus of a new future by exploring the core competencies that are resident in an organization. Gabriel Marcel (1963) introduced into philosophy a distinction between problem and mystery. Mystery produces a diffused experience where the distinction between subject and object disappears. ‘A mystery is something in which I am myself involved, and it can therefore only be thought of as a sphere where the distinction between what is in me and what is before me loses its meaning and its initial validity’ (Marcel, 1963). On the contrary, a problem is something to be fixed. There is very little to appreciate in a problem other than getting rid of it or solving it. This distinction between mystery, problems, and ‘positive throughput’ is the foundation of Appreciative Inquiry. Once everyday experiences of life are drawn in terms of efficiency, logic, precision, and problem solving, organizational experiences become a microcosm of that very mindset. Thus, we have two contrasting and unconscious images of organizations: organizations as problems to be solved or fixed, or as mysteries to be appreciated (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). In this context, Appreciative Inquiry as a methodology seeks to locate and heighten the ‘life-giving-forces’ (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987) or core values of organizations. An affirmation of the organization calls for an indepth understanding of its core values. The focus on core values becomes persuasive when we see organizations as ‘systems of shared meaning and beliefs where the critical activity is the continued construction and maintenance of the meaning and belief systems which assure compliance, commitment, and positive affect on the part of the participants’ (Pfeffer, 1982, p. 82). Pfeffer’s definition amplifies the life giving nature of values, beliefs, and ideology around which people organize themselves for collective action. An affirmation of the uniqueness of organizational values is most likely to help a researcher or consultant realize what makes such organizing possible and understand the possibilities of newer and more effective forms of organizing. Appreciative Inquiry seeks the best of ‘what is’ in order to provide an impetus for imagining ‘what might be’. According to Karl Weick (1982), intense affirmation might also show faults and inadequacies more readily than intense criticisms. He argues that if we have only weak images of organizations to work with we are likely to end up with weak theories of their organizing. Another writer in this area, Peter Elbow (1973), reminds us that we could also make an intentional choice to play the ‘believing game’ as opposed to the ‘doubting game’. In the doubting game, the consultant or researcher has a suspicious eye whereas in the believing game the efforts are to understand the organizational dynamics from the participants’ point of


47

view. In this context, explanations and interpretations are affirmations that assert what organizations are more than what they are not. As Weick (1982, p. 445) says, ‘We first have to affirm that it is there, in order, second, to discover that it is there’. Appreciative Inquiry, in essence, is an attempt to generate a collective image of a future by exploring the best of what is and has been. The basic rationale of Appreciative Inquiry is to begin with a grounded observation of the best of what is, articulate what might be, ensure the consent of those in the system to what should be, and collectively experiment with what can be (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). Appreciative Inquiry argues that organizational research efforts should be appreciative, applicable, provocative, and collaborative. Appreciation means that the research process should not be based on the problem solving mode, but instead should build on the uniqueness and specific qualities of the organization under consideration. The ‘applicable’ calls for the research to be relevant, useful, and potentially capable of generating new knowledge. The ‘provocative’ refers to a type of analysis that becomes challenging and generative (Gergen, 1994b). A generative approach points toward realistic potentials that are latent in the system. It becomes challenging when enactment of those potentials represents a moderately high risk requiring the development of unused or untried possibilities (Cooperrider and Srivastva, 1987). To conclude, Appreciative Inquiry is an ideally suited methodology if one is interested in studying how to reframe organizational realities. Ever since its introduction in 1986–1987, Appreciative Inquiry has been used in a wide variety of organization development situations. One of its most comprehensive uses was with a nonprofit global organization in a study that was conducted by this author and documented in his doctoral dissertation (Thatchenkery, 1994).

APPRECIATIVE INTELLIGENCE After reading and studying over a hundred stories about leaders in the Investor’s Business Daily column, ‘Leaders and Success’, Tojo Thatchenkery observed certain patterns in leaders’ behavior. Building on his doctoral work on the methodology and technique of Appreciative Inquiry with the team of Suresh Srivastva and David Cooperrider in the late 1980s, and later as a business consultant and Professor of Organizational Learning, Thatchenkery began to see that the ability to appreciate – to see hidden value in people and situations – and to construct a more positive future seemed more related to a leader’s success than did traditional IQ or subject matter expertise. Appreciative intelligence, a term coined by Thatchenkery, is the missing

48


link between leadership, intelligence, and success. Because it was never conceptualized or articulated before by traditional intelligence researchers in the field of psychology, leadership research placed undue importance on the capacity of leaders to get things done, primarily based on traits that helped leaders influence others by sheer charisma, analytical intelligence, or positional power. One of Thatchenkery’s findings is that leaders who possess a high level of appreciative intelligence have higher incidence of innovation, entrepreneurship, more productive employees, and greater ability to adapt to changes – particularly to lumps and bumps – in a volatile economy and environment. Furthermore, by developing appreciative intelligence in leaders, the traditional workplace can be made into a more productive and humane environment. Top leaders show a high degree of four characteristics of appreciative intelligence (Thatchenkery and Metzker, 2006): 1.

2.

3.

4.

Ability to reframe reality to bring out the inherent generative potential in a situation, in much the same way that the farmers of Enterprise, Alabama, saw the devastation caused by the cotton-eating boll weevil insect as an opportunity to diversify their agriculture. Capacity to appreciate people – to see and expose the hidden value in others, as did Estee Lauder who saw a shoeless woman who entered an upscale store as a potential good customer, and ended up selling two of each product to her and more to her relatives the next day. Irrepressible resilience – the ability to bounce back from a difficult situation, as did Dell, Inc., with Michael Dell leading the company from its year 2000 drop in performance, market capitalization, and shareholder base back to a $90 billion capitalization, improved performance, and return to stable long-term shareholder base today. Ability to build an infrastructure/environment/culture/system that spreads the leader’s appreciative intelligence to others and helps appreciation perpetuate, as did Tupperware’s marketing genius Brownie Wise who made Tupperware a household name as she inspired thousands of company representatives to successful careers.

While some individuals possess a high degree of appreciative intelligence naturally, others can learn, develop, and enhance their skills for greater effectiveness by identifying their own areas of appreciative intelligence and expanding them. By working from the conscious practice of reframing and appreciating, leaders can move to a position of unconscious competence in reframing, appreciating, and creating a self-perpetuating appreciative culture.

4.

How to ASK

Green Capital Bank was a well-known financial institution that integrated an approach to knowledge management called Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge in an attempt to create a culture of true knowledge sharing that would positively impact the bottom line. The question that most organizations have is how to help and foster these quick knowledge exchanges. How can they define the benefits? The integral components of a knowledge management program include: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Generating new knowledge both internally and by accessing valuable knowledge from outside sources. Representing knowledge in documents, databases, and software. Facilitating knowledge growth through culture and incentives. Transferring existing knowledge into other parts of the organization. Measuring the value of knowledge assets and impact of knowledge management. The creation of a new and advanced awareness of the benefits of retaining knowledge within the organization as changes occur and people leave.

The ASK process, as outlined in this chapter, helps pave the way for these components. This chapter focuses on how to implement an ASK process, step by step. The chapter highlights various antecedent factors on how the ASK process was initiated at the Green Capital Bank. There are several elements of appreciation that should be kept in mind in creating an ASK process. The first is a corporate culture that promotes knowledge sharing and the technology that enables it. Managers can promote the value of knowledge sharing by openly praising and rewarding employees who share knowledge rather than hoarding it. One way to enforce knowledge sharing is to use it as an evaluation point in performance appraisals. The second is the elimination of organizational barriers to knowledge sharing. Several outdated business processes, organizational structures, and inefficient management systems can create territorial barriers that reduce the willingness to share knowledge. And third is the desire on the part of the leader to embrace a ‘positive approach’ to planning and management rather than merely a problem solving approach. 49

50

Step


1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be


Key Themes • •

Outcome

Process

• • •



K1 K2 K3 K4

5.


Figure 4.1

Create FuturePresent Scenarios

Prioritize Actions


Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge steps

However, as evidenced from previous chapters, the key ingredient for Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge is the climate. Does the organization support sharing? Do people feel they have to hoard their knowledge in order to survive? What has been the history of knowledge management projects in the organization? Responses to these questions play a key role in deciding when and how you would introduce ASK in an organization. Figure 4.1 depicts the process that we will take you through in this chapter. As in any organizational change technique, we begin ASK by focusing on the current state or ‘what is’. Steps 1, 2, and 3 will help the practitioner or change agent to discover the appreciative temperature of their organization with a series of questions asked in a facilitated session with interviews. The focus will be on capturing what has worked so far in the organization and to extract the core processes supporting knowledge sharing. During these steps a set of key themes or ‘knowledge enablers’ (KEs) will emerge throughout several of the stories that the participants share. Steps 4, 5, and 6 validate the knowledge enablers through a series of interviews and subsequent organizational analysis. We will also build upon

How to ASK

Table 4.1

51

ASK actions

Step

Action




them to create a set of ‘future-present scenarios’ that ‘might be’. Step 7 takes that list further by expanding and prioritizing them into more manageable and actionable options. The resulting step 8 creates an action plan to make ‘what will be’ real. Table 4.1 depicts and summarizes the steps.

DISCOVERING WHAT IS Step 1: Negotiating Top Management Commitment and Support The genesis of knowledge management usually begins with one person who might have a need to shrink the gap between how knowledge is shared and Step

Action

Step 1

Negotiating top management commitment and support

Step 2

Presenting the appreciative knowledge sharing paradigm

Step 3

Identification of knowledge enablers

Step 4

Expansion of knowledge enablers using appreciative interviews designed and conducted by the ASK team

Step 5

Thematic analysis of the data to undertake a knowledge infrastructure analysis

Step 6

Constructing future-present scenarios

Step 7

Consensual validation of the future-present scenarios

Step 8

Creating and mandating an implementation team

52


how knowledge needs to be shared. He or she realizes that the organization can improve its bottom line and realize a significant competitive advantage when people share what they know. Depending on who she or he is, and what he or she does with that realization, a knowledge management project may or may not succeed. Like all change efforts or knowledge management projects, the influence, passion, and dedication of the sponsor correlate to the success or failure of the effort. Step 1 involves endorsement and support from top management. Ideally, the chief executive or someone at senior level is the champion/ sponsor for it. In many real world contexts, this may not happen right at the beginning. In such situations, all that is needed is tacit support to get the project going. In most cases, this will lead to a more explicit support and commitment of resources. Thanks to the appreciative format that will be used in an ASK initiative, managers tend to see a value in the project much sooner than traditional knowledge management approaches that involve larger investments. To formalize the initiation of the project, the champion can send out a written communication explaining the significance of the initiative, the approximate timeline, and the expectations involvement of that he or she has of the staff. The memo may be drafted by staff but must be sent out by the executive sponsor to show leadership endorsement of the initiative. Step 1: process summary People

● ●

Outcome

● ●

Method

●

Champion of ASK initiative (leader within organization) ASK team members Leadership endorsement Written communication endorsement from sponsor to organization (via memorandum or email) Meetings between ASK initiative team members and sponsor

Step 2: Presenting the Appreciative Knowledge Sharing Paradigm Once the sponsor has initiated the ASK initiative, it is time to involve various stakeholders and the knowledge workers. Grounding the employees in the context of the appreciative approach is crucial. The subtleties must be well understood to ensure the project’s success. Appreciation is not the power of positive thinking. It is not a ‘touchyfeely’ tool. The appreciative approach asks the participants to take a hard look at the reality around them, but appreciatively. This does not mean ignoring or neglecting what is on people’s minds. An example we have often

How to ASK

Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


53

used is of a crying child. Asking the child to shut up and start smiling is not appreciative. To be truly appreciative here an adult needs to empathize with the child, acknowledge the child’s feelings, and respect his/her state of mind as genuine and a source of understanding. We find that starting an ASK initiative with a good input of theory of appreciation and knowledge creation is useful. There is an underestimation of corporate America’s willingness to listen to theory. Invoking Kurt Lewin’s notion that ‘there is nothing more practical than a good theory’, we believe that explaining the logic and philosophy of ASK would help in creating the right mindset and motivation to engage in the project. This is best accomplished by making a thorough presentation of ASK in about 30 minutes to a representative sample of stakeholders in the project, preferably all of the participants. In this carefully prepared presentation, various salient features of ASK, such as the role of language in creating reality, the deficit versus appreciative discourses, the history of appreciation, and communities of practice, must be communicated briefly and effectively. Step 2: process summary People

● ● ●

Outcome Method

● ●

ASK initiative sponsor First round of participants of ASK (~30 people) ASK team members Employees understand what ASK is Meeting (part 1 of 2) run by ASK team members and ASK initiative sponsor to enable the discussion of the first round of participants

54


Step 3: Identification of Knowledge Enablers Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge projects normally start with a demonstration of the power and methodology of ASK. The task is typically accomplished by interviews in pairs among those who attended the presentation in step 2. Step 3 step subtly accomplishes three tasks at once. First, members will later get an opportunity to hear the content of the interviews that are, by its very definition and process, appreciative knowledge sharing stories. Second, the interviews help in identifying what are called ‘knowledge enablers’. Third, the process works as an ice-breaker activity to get the ASK task started. If it is not possible to do the interviews in pairs, the ASK team may take responsibility to do the interviews themselves. Storytelling is an effective knowledge management and organizational change tool. Sharing a story creates the space for the client to imagine what might be in their organization. By listening to a story one can ‘get in the minds of individuals who collectively make up the organization and [affect] how they think, worry, wonder, agonize, and dream about themselves and in the process create and recreate their organization’. The storyteller shares stories of events that are already working well in the organization. This creates a framework to generate more ideas of what else could easily work well in the organization. The following sample interview questions for Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge help begin the process of understanding the best of what is happening in the organization to plant the seeds for what needs to be. The interviewer starts by asking the interviewee (or his/her partner) a few

How to ASK

55

questions in order to get a sense of how knowledge sharing has been working in the organization. The interviewee (or partner) is then asked to answer his or her choice of the following questions: Sample questions 1. Think about a time when you shared something that you knew, which enabled you and your company to achieve success. Describe one such event when you felt most alive, excited, valued, or appreciated. Follow-up questions

a)

What made it a significant positive experience? Or, What is it about the experience that you continue to cherish? b) What did you learn from that experience? c) How can you apply your learning to your daily activities? 2. Name an event where one of your colleagues did something exemplary recently (outstanding/highly successful) with respect to knowledge sharing. What did s/he do? Follow-up questions

a) What did you admire in her/him? b) How has that (what s/he did) contributed to the success of the organization? c) Can this learning be extended to others? How? 3. What are your images for the future of this organization with respect to knowledge sharing? What would you like to contribute to make that happen? The interviewer always prompts for a full description of incidents. He or she should steer the interview to hear more about what happened rather than why it happened. Doing so will help identify the core elements of the story. Each interview takes approximately 30–45 minutes. Once the interviews are over, the facilitator will ask the participants to share the stories they heard from their partners. As they do this public sharing, it is important not to ask any justifying questions to those sharing. Whatever is shared is accepted. The one exception is clarifying questions, which can and should be asked. As these stories are shared, the ASK team members capture main descriptors on a white board. While capturing, it is important not to spend

56


too much time in wordsmithing. The words that stand out from a story are given a name and listed on the whiteboard. These descriptors generate the dozens of first cut of themes. With the help of the audience, the facilitator will analyze them and narrow them down to four to five. In the ASK initiative, these four or five key values/themes are called knowledge enablers. They are the building blocks of knowledge sharing within the organization. To give you an example of a knowledge enabler, listed below is one set that we obtained. We show more examples in the subsequent chapters that include case studies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Collegiality. Teamwork. Valuing autonomy. Opportunity for personal growth. Participation.

Step 3: process summary People

● ● ●

Outcome

● ●

Method

● ●

●

ASK initiative sponsor First round of participants of ASK (~30 people) ASK team members Employees have conducted their first round of ASK interviews Employees have begun identifying knowledge enablers Meeting (part 2 of 2) facilitated by ASK team members Break out teams of two, each employee interviews a colleague using ASK interview questions Each employee reports to the larger group and key themes are captured on the white board by ASK team members

CREATING WHAT MIGHT BE Step 4: Expansion of Knowledge Enablers Using Appreciative Interviews Designed and Conducted by the ASK Team Once the knowledge enablers are identified, your task is to explore the knowledge infrastructure factors that facilitate the existence and continuance of the knowledge enablers. Using the above example, explore those factors in the organization that sustain and nourish collegiality, teamwork, valuing autonomy, participation, and opportunity for personal growth. You find this out using the appreciative interview. Ideally, these one-on-one interviewees should be people who were not part of step 3.

57

1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be


Vote

Key Themes • •

Process

• • •

Outcome



Step

How to ASK

Action ActionItems Items 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4.

K1 K2 K3 K4

5.


Prioritize Actions


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


The sample appreciative interview format is outlined below: 1.

Introduction a) Explain the purpose of the interview. Assure confidentiality of responses.

58


b) Establish rapport. Make sure the interviewee feels comfortable and easy with the interview. Emphasize the fact that there are no right or wrong answers. 2.

Priming/context setting questions a) Tell me something about what attracted you to this organization. How did you start out? What were your initial excitements and impressions?

3.

Exploring knowledge enablers. Example: Collegiality a) Several people in your organization have identified collegiality as a knowledge enabler. Can you tell me something more about it? b) Can you describe two incidents where you found collegiality at its best? Or, When have you experienced a significant level of collegiality in this organization? c) What are the factors or conditions that facilitate the existence of collegiality here?

4. The same process is used for the remaining knowledge enablers. Example: teamwork: a) Several people in your organization have identified teamwork as a knowledge enabler. Can you tell me something more about it? b) Can you describe two incidents where you found teamwork at its best? Or, When have you experienced a significant level of teamwork in this organization? c) What are the factors or conditions that facilitate the existence of teamwork here? Follow the same pattern with the rest of the knowledge enablers. It is critical to explore at least the following two aspects with respect to each knowledge enabler. 1. 2.

Description of occasions/events where the interviewee experienced the knowledge enabler in its most alive manifestation. Factors/conditions (personal, organizational, and/or environmental) that heighten/facilitate/promote these knowledge enablers.

How to ASK

59


● ●

Outcome

●

Method

●

Second round of participants of ASK (~30 people) ASK team members ASK team members have validated and explored knowledge enablers ASK team members interview 30 employees individually

Step 5: Thematic Analysis of the Data Using Knowledge Infrastructure Factors Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


Once the KE factors have been identified and further explored, the remaining task is to enhance the operation of those factors within the system. Some would say this is the hardest part of the process. In chapter 3 we discussed the Pygmalion (also called Galatea or Rosenthal) effect. In the knowledge sharing context, the knowledge enablers are like Galatea, highly desirable and so attractive that people desire to bring them to life or to see more of them in practice in their work settings. Further, once the knowledge enablers have been correctly identified, building on them is possible by helping individuals imagine the ideal future as if it has already happened. The next step is to analyze the interview data to get a sense of the knowledge infrastructure factors (KIFs). Knowledge infrastructure is the backbone of any knowledge enabler. Without this infrastructure, knowledge enabler cannot sustain themselves for long.

60


Incentives for knowledge sharing

Leadership

Knowledge enablers (e.g., collegiality, participation)

Communication

Decision making Organizational routines & practices

Figure 4.2

Knowledge enablers and knowledge infrastructure factors

KIFs may be thought of metaphorically as the pillars that support an architectural structure (Thatchenkery, 2005) (Figure 4.2). If removed or damaged the building may collapse. Yet, when looking at an architectural marvel, we do not necessarily think of the pillars, or may not even be aware of their existence: the pillars don’t command attention nor are they very visible in a casual external appearance, yet they are critical for the very existence of the building. The knowledge infrastructure factors work in similar ways. Without them, the knowledge enablers cannot exist. Unlike knowledge enablers, they are the same for every organization. Based on a review of knowledge management research literature, the following knowledge infrastructure factors have been identified (Thatchenkery, 2005). They are decision making, organizational practices and routines, incentives for knowledge sharing, leadership, and communication.

How to ASK

61

Decision making As a knowledge infrastructure factor, decision making refers to the relatively permanent and institutionally legitimized way decisions are made in an organization. Over a period of time, based on historicity and norms, organizations tend to develop a pattern of decision making which is transmitted from old timers to newcomers through socialization processes. Examples are participatory, consensus based, or autocratic decision making styles. Organizations will have certain decision making styles irrespective of whatever knowledge enablers they may have. For example, faculty in a particular university may identify freedom of expression as a knowledge enabler (Thatchenkery, 2005). They find freedom of expression as core to knowledge sharing. In a nonprofit development-oriented organization, empowering others may be a knowledge enabler. In both organizations, decision making is a knowledge infrastructure factor. If decisions are made autocratically, it will certainly affect freedom of expression among faculty members or the empowering of others in the nonprofit organization. A significant body of research exists to suggest that participatory or consensus-based decision making styles tend to foster collaborative behavior in organizations. It is safe to assume that collaborative behaviors are more likely to lead to knowledge sharing than competitive practices. In the latter, individuals may have a vested interest in protecting or hoarding their knowledge. Organizational practices and routines Organizational practices refer to routines, procedures, and established ways of doing things that have become normal like a habit (Thatchenkery, 2005). They tend to be repeated with certain periodicity such that organizational participants would come to anticipate the occurrence of those routines or procedures at the prescribed time and place. All organizations have routines and practices. A Monday morning meeting every week, having a customary welcome party for a new employee, letting every employee, irrespective of rank, meet with the President if the employee desires, and so on, are examples of organizational practices. In several highly functioning knowledge sharing organizations, another organizational practice called communities of practice (CoPs) has been in existence as well, where people share their knowledge informally and voluntarily. A CoP, as used in knowledge sharing, is spontaneously and voluntarily organized by those interested in enhancing their knowledge and networking, potentially around a certain subject or profession. Typically, individuals will gather around for 40 minutes and share their wealth of knowledge and at the same time learn new practices and procedures from those who share.

62


Recent organizational research suggests that organizational routines can have either facilitative or inhibitive influences on organizational innovation (Thatchenkery, 2005). For example, a practice of having to send every new idea for approval to a chain of hierarchy is most likely to inhibit innovation. On the other hand, a different practice where a group that comes up with a new idea is also given responsibility to bring it to production stage may be more effective in encouraging creative solutions. When an engineer in Hewlett-Packard refers to the ‘HP way’ he or she is actually referring to its institutionalized practice and routines. HP insiders know what to do when a new idea emerges in their unit. It will be a predictable series of actions and follow-ups, even though they may be unaware that they are reacting in a routine-like manner. Certain organizational practices like the CoPs mentioned above have been shown to be highly facilitative for knowledge sharing in a large number of researches. Other evidence points to the long term advantages of productive organizational routines. Once established, they are relatively easy to maintain, thereby freeing up valuable organizational energy for more proactive strategies and actions. It is important to recognize that habits, routines, and norms can be a liability or asset. Once solidified with time, habits and routines, whether productive or non-productive, tend to become comfortable. In that context, the ASK process gives a unique opportunity for stakeholders to examine whether the routines are facilitating or inhibiting knowledge enabling. If they are inhibiting, the future-present scenarios (FPS) that will be introduced later in the book will be a pragmatic way to address the situation (Thatchenkery, 2005). Incentives, leadership, and communication are the remaining knowledge infrastructure factors. Together with decision making and organizational practices and routines, they constitute the support structure that not only maintains the knowledge enablers but also enhances them when used as key elements of the FPS construction process (which will be explained later in this chapter). Incentives for knowledge sharing The organizational practices and routines eventually shape the type of incentives for knowledge sharing. It has frequently been observed that some practices and routines act as incentives for knowledge sharing while others do the opposite. Incentives as a knowledge infrastructure factor are benefits, material and psychological rewards that the organization has institutionalized to encourage knowledge sharing. A key question is: What incentives are in place to recognize individuals who share knowledge? All organizations have some form of incentive that may or may not encourage knowledge sharing. The impact of incentives on organizational performance has been thor-

How to ASK

63

oughly researched and documented. Available evidence suggests that both material and psychological incentives play a key role in employee morale and satisfaction. In some cases, financial incentives cease to have an impact and more intangible ones like status, challenge, autonomy, and recognition become more important. As a KIF, most incentives are likely to be psychological rather than material or financial. Leadership It should not be a surprise that leadership is a KIF. Leadership is a critical pillar for all organizations. Some leadership styles support knowledge enablers better than others. Identifying those that are significant to the group or organization, as noted earlier, is of critical importance. As one would imagine, leadership is one of the most researched concepts in management. Voluminous amounts of empirical data and anecdotal evidence are readily available to demonstrate the role of leadership in creating excellence in organizations. In the case of ASK, the support provided by leadership appears to contribute to the legitimacy and acceptance of the process. Such an observation is of course consistent with traditional change management literature where it has been shown again and again that top management support is critical for change efforts to succeed. Organizational practices and leadership impact each other. Certain practices, such as the presence of distributed, self-autonomous groups, are likely to encourage the emergence of participative leadership styles. Or, the participative leadership style may encourage the creation of selfautonomous groups. While it is not necessary or even possible to determine what comes first, recognition of the mutual causality or interdependence between the two is useful in creating action steps for the future. Communication Like leadership, communication is a KIF. The quality and style of communication that support knowledge sharing are the focus here. Also just like leadership, communication as a concept has been solidly researched and shown to directly influence the quality of organizational outcomes. Some communication styles enhance knowledge sharing while others curtail it. Research strongly supports what is ‘common knowledge’ to many organizational development practitioners: an open communication style where employees are able to talk to each other without regard to hierarchical status tends to create a more knowledge sharing climate. Organizations with set rules about channels of communication and strict protocols regarding who can talk to whom tend to generate a climate where people are more likely not to take the time or risk of sharing. As in the case of leadership, organizational practices and routines impact

64


communication styles as well. For example, the larger the number of selfautonomous groups in an organization, the larger the probability of horizontal channels of communication flourishing. Interdependency of KIFs and KEs It is important to recognize that the above KIFs are intermingled and interdependent (Thatchenkery, 2005). From a constructionist perspective, all labeling (naming) is socially constituted, serving the purpose of aiding the sense making process. This interdependence suggests that one KIF cannot exist without the support and existence of the other; each promotes the existence of the other; making sense cannot happen without the existence of the other. Yet, as in many identifying processes, treating them as if they are ‘independent’ makes the data easier to analyze and understand. Further, the possibility of designing proposition statements (which will be explained later) is easier through recognizing that interactivity between the actionable, independent KIF and KE is vital to productive knowledge sharing. Building a KE–KIF matrix Organize the interview responses obtained in step 2 in a large matrix. On one axis of the matrix is listed the knowledge enablers and on the other the infrastructure factors. The cells in the matrix will contain examples of the KE and KIF they represent (Table 4.2). Step 5: process summary People Outcome Method

● ● ●

●

ASK team members Thematic analysis of knowledge enablers ASK team members transcribe interview notes and analyze themes as a group ASK team members organize data across knowledge infrastructure factors

Step 6: Constructing Future-Present Scenario Statements The term ‘future-present’ may seem like a paradox. A future-present scenario statement is a concrete description with rich details of a future desired state happening in the present reality. The future has come to the present; this has also been called ‘anticipatory reality statements’. A futurepresent scenario statement bridges the best of ‘what is’ with one’s own image or anticipation of ‘what might be’. Sports psychology has used the practice of imagining a concrete, sometimes immediately realizable, future scenario for a long time. Many runners

65

How to ASK

Table 4.2

Knowledge enablers Empowerment

Knowledge Infrastructure Decision Examples Making of decision making styles that enhance empowerment

Teamwork

Respect

Building Relationships

Examples of decision making styles that enhance teamwork

Examples of decision making styles that enhance respect

Examples of decision making styles that enhance building relationships

Leadership

Examples of leadership styles that enhance empowerment

Examples of leadership styles that enhance teamwork

Examples of leadership styles that enhance respect

Examples of leadership styles that enhance building relationships

Communities of Practice & Organizational Practices

Examples of CoPs & OPs that facilitate empowerment

Examples of CoPs & OPs that facilitate teamwork

Examples of CoPs & OPs that facilitate respect

Examples of CoPs & OPs that facilitate building relationships

Incentives

Examples of incentive systems that facilitate empowerment

Examples of incentive systems that facilitate teamwork

Examples of incentive systems that facilitate respect

Examples of incentive systems that facilitate building relationships

Communication

Examples of communication that facilitates empowerment

Examples of communication that facilitates teamwork

Examples of communication that facilitates respect

Examples of communication that facilitates building relationships

imagine themselves reaching the finish line. Sometimes called ‘visualization’ exercises, the logic of such practices is now fully supported by research evidence in cognitive psychology (Oschner and Lieberman, 2001). Using future-present scenarios during the ASK process helps stakeholders in an organization think of the future as if it is already present and they therefore may get a better sense of what it feels to live that future. Constructing these scenarios is challenging because it stretches the realm of the status quo and helps suggest real possibilities that represent potentials for knowledge sharing in the organization. A future-present scenario releases energy to make visions a reality (Thatchenkery, 2005). The key is in the richness of the details. The more details about a futurepresent scenario one can create, the more concrete the statements become

66


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


after the writing process. The future-present scenario statements will consist mostly of what is possible as opposed to what is not. There will be no deficit terms in an FPS. Cognitive psychologists have shown that deficit constructs tend to create a deficit or fragmented reality. In creating an FPS, the stakeholder’s mind becomes populated by details of a new reality. Often without being consciously aware, the person then engages in behaviors that are likely to produce more or less the same reality that existed in their thoughts. In the case of ASK, a future-present scenario helps suggest real possibilities for knowledge sharing in the organization and helps heighten attention to such possibilities, making it more likely that such potential will become reality. At the same time, it is important to remember that the future-present scenarios must be data supported. That is, the matrix of KIFs and KEs is the launching pad for the future-present scenario. Someone cannot just make up a future-present scenario because he or she likes it, wishes it to happen, or thinks that is what the organization needs. One of the features that distinguishes ASK is that the methodology forces the future to be embedded in the meaningful aspects of the present. One way to structure this process is to use the CIG model (commitment, inspiration, and groundedness). Three elements interact in creating a future-present scenario statement in the model (see Figure 4.3). The CIG model is based on the synthesis of several theories of managing change (e.g., Lewin, 1951/1997; McGregor, 1960; Herzberg et al., 1959; Rogers, 1980/1995; and Argyris, 1993). They argue that certain elements need to be in place so that individuals, groups, or organizations can change.

67

How to ASK

Commitment Future-present scenarios

FPS

Inspiration

Figure 4.3

Groundedness

Interacting elements of future-present scenarios

For example, psychotherapists have long observed that individuals change when their desire change (inspiration) is synergistically combined with concrete ‘baby steps’ (groundedness), and a plan to stay on course (commitment). If the change is too dramatic, or the expectations unrealistic, the commitment to sustain the change will eventually vanish. The same can be said of groups and organizations. Change agents must learn the art of creating enough energy and desire for change and grounding the desired new behaviors, practices, or structures into something specific, measurable, and concrete. Above all, they need to think in the long term, that is, How long can these changes be sustained? Is there enough commitment on the part of the stakeholders to go through with the change process? Commitment, inspiration, and groundedness are thus elements that must be present in a healthy future-present scenario (Thatchenkery, 2005). Without commitment, the new possibility will not materialize. It will be easy for participants in such a scenario building activity to come up with provocative or daring possibilities, but as a consultant you may want to ask: Do the data so far show evidence for a long term commitment for making this scenario possible?

68


The second element in the model, inspiration, is the driver that provides the energy for people to carry out the new possibility. And finally, the future-present scenario must be realistic and plausible (groundedness). If it is too far-fetched, looking too radical or beyond the capabilities of the organization, not many will have the energy to make it happen. This is a fine line and calls for certain judgment, both on the part of the participants and the consultant. Overall, a future-present scenario constructed using the three elements of commitment, inspiration, and groundedness is more likely to become a reality. Future-present scenario statements contain three elements: inspiration, commitment, and groundedness. To realize future-present scenarios in a knowledge sharing corporation, we need to link the future-present scenarios with the knowledge enablers and knowledge infrastructure factors as seen in the matrix below (Table 4.3). The future-present scenarios are the key to making existing parts of the knowledge sharing culture grow and thrive in the organization of tomorrow. To come up with ideas for the future-present scenarios, consider the following: 1.

Locate significant examples of each KE, the best of ‘what is’ from your step 2 matrix. Analyze/interpret how and what kinds of KIF positively increase or support each KE. Extrapolate from the ‘best of what is’ to envision what is possible. Be imaginative and inspiring. Let the resulting creativity envision a collectively desirable future for the organization. Construct a future-present scenario statement of what is possible and state it in affirmative language as if the scenario were already true and happening fully in the present.

2. 3.

4.

Developing future-present scenarios To write the future-present scenarios, certain criteria, as noted below, are involved: ● ● ● ●

Write it as if it is already happening. Use the present tense. Be specific. State the activity, skill, or practice you propose to create the new reality. Examine how you feel about living in the new vision and reality. Keep the inspiration–commitment–groundedness model in mind.

After the future-present scenario statement has been written, consider whether it accommodates the following:

69

How to ASK

Table 4.3

Matrix for constructing future-present scenario statements Empowerment

Teamwork

Respect


Decision Making

Propositions related to decision making styles that enhance empowerment

Propositions related to decision making styles that enhance teamwork

Propositions related to decision making styles that enhance respect

Propositions related to decision making styles that enhance building relationships

Leadership

Propositions related to leadership styles that enhance empowerment

Propositions related to leadership styles that enhance teamwork

Propositions related to leadership styles that enhance respect

Propositions related to leadership styles that enhance building relationships

Communities of Practice & Organizational Practices

Propositions related to CoP that enhance empowerment

Propositions related to CoP that enhance teamwork

Propositions related to CoP that enhance respect

Propositions related to CoP that enhance building relationships

Incentives

Propositions related to incentive systems that enhance empowerment

Propositions related to incentive systems that enhance teamwork

Propositions related to incentive systems that enhance respect

Propositions related to incentive systems that enhance building relationships

Communication

Propositions related to communication that enhance empowerment

Propositions related to communication that enhance teamwork

Propositions related to communication that enhance respect

Propositions related to communication that enhance building relationships

1. 2. 3. 4.

Is the statement really challenging or merely a restatement of something already in practice? Is it specific, concrete, and tangible, as opposed to something very general and abstract? Does it inspire you, the participant? Does it stay grounded and connected to the knowledge enabler and the knowledge infrastructure factor under consideration?

It is important to remember that different organizations will create different possibilities based on their own style, culture, preferences, and

70


so on. Even the amount of detail or how specific the statements are will vary across different organizations: as long as the organization meets the criteria – inspired, committed, and grounded and the possibilities stretch the current reality, accept whatever future-present scenarios are created. Additionally, accept as many as the group feels it is important to add. The greater the participation in this step (as with every other), the greater the success of your ASK initiative and future knowledge sharing within the organization. Examples of these provocative propositions can be found in the subsequent case study chapters. Step 6: process summary People Outcome

●

Method

●

●

ASK team members and/or employees of the organization ASK team members and/or employees of the organization have created future-present scenario statements ASK team members and/or employees of the organization pull from interview data to create future-present scenario statements

Step

PRIORITIZING WHAT COULD BE

1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be

• •

Outcome

Process

• • •


Key Themes



K1 K2 K3 K4

5.



Prioritize Actions


71

How to ASK

Step 7: Consensual Validation of Future-Present Scenario Statements Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


Once the propositions have been written, check them again against the criteria listed in the previous section. Ask different groups to visit others and comment on each others’ statements a reach a revised set of propositions. Once this has been done, ask everyone in the group/audience to valence them using the following three questions: How much of an ideal is it? 5 4 VERY MUCH

3

How much of it may already be present? 5 4 3 A LOT

2

1 NOT MUCH

2

1 NOT MUCH

Realistically, how soon do you want this to happen? Immediately

Short Term (within six months)

Long Term (within two years)

Once the valencing has been done, tabulate the scores. Look for propositions with the maximum discrepancy between the ideal and the present and needing immediate implementation. At the end, you should have all the propositions prioritized through a set of criteria that are important to the organization.

72



● ● ●

Outcome

●

●

Method

●

●

ASK initiative sponsor All ASK participants ASK team members The organization has upgraded and validated the future-present scenarios The organization has ranked the future-present scenarios ASK team members present future-present scenarios, receive upgrades and validations The organization ranks the propositions based on three criteria

Step

DECLARING WHAT WILL BE 1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be

• •

Outcome

Process

• • •


Key Themes



K1 K2 K3 K4

5.



Prioritize Actions


Step 8: Creating and Mandating an Implementation Team This is the most important step in ASK. Several organizations have done excellent work from step 1 through 7 but have hesitated at step 8. We are beginning to realize that part of the reason for this is that in those cases the future-present statements were not written keeping in mind the criteria

How to ASK

Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


73

listed earlier. It is relatively easy to come up with exciting possibilities, but implementing them is where the hard work really begins. To avoid this trap, you must make sure that the propositions in the high priority list are those for which a true desire for implementation exists. You may work with the client in setting up the implementation team and do periodic follow-ups on how the process is working. This team would be in charge of prioritizing and implementing the highest priority possibility propositions and making them a reality. A contract that includes an implementation phase would be ideal in this context. Step 8: process summary People

● ● ●

Outcome

●

Method

●

ASK initiative sponsor All ASK participants ASK team members The highest ranked future-present scenarios have an action plan and owner for each task Implementation owners design and present an action plan for successful implementation

In the following chapters we will explore several cases of how this method has been applied in organizations and the results that have been achieved.

5.

Private sector case studies

Many private industries keep their competitive edge by maintaining a culture of innovation by trying to be the first to come up with new ideas and products. In such contexts, organizational silos and incentives traditionally prohibit knowledge sharing. We believe that the appreciative approach helps remove these barriers and pave the way for cross-organizational fertilization and a cycle of innovation. In this chapter we include two case studies – an environmental information technology company (ITC, a fictitious name) and a well known top ranked bank (Green Capital Bank (GCB), also a fictitious name). In the ITC study, we provide a sample of the setting and themes produced. In the GCB case, we provide a step-by-step example of how to conduct an ASK initiative.

ITC A group of experienced students with change management backgrounds formed into a consulting team and studied ITC’s corporate environment for knowledge sharing. The recently appointed Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) wanted to use the initiative to set the foundation for a knowledge management program that she hoped to create. Another objective was to find out ‘who knows what’ and to learn if ITC’s infrastructure could sustain continued growth and support new clients. During the time of the study, ITC was a 10-year-old employee-owned, environmental and consulting firm serving 15 federal agencies and several state, local, and international governments, as well as 10 private industry clients and associations. ITC was headquartered in Arlington, Virginia with other offices in Washington DC, Research Triangle Park, NC, and remote locations across the United States. It had sales of nearly $30 million annually. With approximately 300 employees, ITC was preparing to grow to 500 employees. Accessing and sharing the knowledge of each and every employee was crucial to its success and further growth. Sharing information, keeping it current, and becoming aware of what other members of the organization were thinking about and doing were necessary to improve the bottom line of the company. ITC was working to increase knowledge 74


75

sharing – both internally, to ensure that its infrastructure would sustain and encourage growth, and externally, to continually support and increase its number of clients – in order to continue the success of the previous ten years. ITC had a corporate environment set up for knowledge sharing. The organizational structure was relatively flat and had few layers. ITC was made up of three business centers and under the centers were six clusters. Those clusters had several practice areas, which were led by Practice Area Leaders (PALs). The practice areas were organized by core competencies and driven by client needs. They were very fluid and organized by matrix. WAMs (Work Assignment Managers) helped lead the practice areas below the level of PAL. Employee roles were diverse and flexible within the matrix, such that a PAL or Assistant WAM for one practice area could concurrently hold the role of worker in another practice area. Additionally, roles continually changed as projects and client needs changed over time. ITC’s basic work unit was the team. Teams were normally formed around one contract or one aspect of a contract. Most employees were on more than one team. Most companies’ core competencies are based on the technical knowledge and experience that they possess. While ITC had these competencies, its true core competencies – what separated it from its competitors – appeared to be some of the more intangible elements of the firm. These included enthusiastic employees, dedication to the customer, and the ability to work in a collaborative, team environment. Furthermore, ITC’s strong culture worked to ensure that these competencies remained effective and a central part of its work. Going for the Gold Our first introduction to this organization was its fall ‘open house’. The theme was ‘Go for the Gold’, with reference to the Summer Olympics which were taking place at the time. This was a great experience for us because it gave us some context for the ITC culture. An organization’s work environment says a lot about its culture. Organizations with open spaces and shared displays tend to be very collaborative. Organizations with pictures of family events such as new babies tend to embrace events in their employees’ lives. In ITC’s case the open work environment and Olympic memorabilia around the office paved the way for fun and collaboration. We saw knowledge booths scattered around ITC’s work area, spaces that were specifically designed with low cubicles for open communication. The atmosphere was extremely informal, with food and beverages floating around. We felt comfortable at the open house because friends and

76


family were such integral components of the event. We could see that ITC places great value on the community of which it is a part. As the open house wound to a close, everyone gathered for an awards ceremony, where many individuals and teams received recognition for their contributions to ITC’s success. Quintessential Stories Our team discussed the frequency of certain stories in our interviews. The following narratives, which we began to refer to as ‘quintessential stories’, appeared in various interviews across the team: ●

Gary (fictional name) created a developer’s portal for the internet team. He had been an analyst and he started analyzing pages, grouped and linked white papers on new technologies, and built a portal. He started telling people in the company and they’d look at it. And they’d send him stuff to add to it. It has a database you can use to search proposals; it has tools for cutting graphics, web sites are categorized, and it has statistics. What started out as a personal interest became a valuable knowledge management company tool.

This story was frequently shared, making it a quasi-‘legend’, and showed employees that individual initiatives were recognized and valued by the company. ●

My colleague and I were meeting in an ITC conference room, and we could hear through the wall a conversation that a client was having with an ITC Practice Area Leader. This unintentional eavesdropping became intentional. So, we pulled the PAL out of the room and took the PAL to another conference room. We told the PAL that we heard what the PAL and the client were talking about, and shared our knowledge that was relevant to the client’s issues. This informal sharing of knowledge resulted in a productive outcome for ITC as well as the client. Our decisions, based on that informal knowledge sharing, were validated by positive feedback from the client.

This story enforces the informal, organic interactions that help the organization thrive. ●

Corporate gatherings are both formal and informal. One year they made the corporate gathering like a game show. They asked questions like, ‘What are the reasons you could be disbarred as a government contractor?’ The winner got a gift certificate for the Best Buy electronics stores. The annual meeting this year was off site – in the AMC movie theater. We saw a movie afterward – families were invited. It was also a formal meeting – treasurer’s report and stock report and the president gave the state-of-the company presentation.


77

This helps build the notion that fun is built into work. ●

When the ‘Green Team’ cleaned up a section of highway for the Adopt-aHighway program, the president provided money to buy plants for the area under the highway sign that let people know ITC adopted this section. What was neat about this project was that it was about giving back to the community, some people used part of their eight hours of paid volunteer time for it, and we got to know each other better – those relationships provide a foundation for working with people. Through our informal conversation, we also learned what each other does.

This story helped capture the sense of community that pervaded the organization. The founders of the company mindfully created a norm that emphasizes informal meetings, focusing on some group activity and often involving eating and discussion. We noticed this at our very first visit when we observed the annual ‘Open House’, which was really a ‘knowledge fair’. The visible focus was on having fun, but the real purpose was to share knowledge among the employees about what their colleagues were doing for other customers and thus keep everyone informed about the firm’s progress and health. Another knowledge sharing norm that we saw in abundance from the shared stories (in round 1 and 2 interviews) was face-to-face meetings and informal meetings. This included eating lunch together (as planned ‘brown bag lunches’ for educational purposes and as unplanned get-togethers when WAMs ate lunch with practice area workers and ended up talking about work issues) and after-work discussions at local restaurants and bars. It was these norms that led to a social structure that involved a significant degree of trust within teams. The founders of ITC purposefully created proximity and a sense of interconnectedness and closeness that led to a feeling of belonging and trust. The result was increased trust, which enabled increased knowledge sharing. We developed a number of our possibility propositions around ways to improve trust or take it to a new level as a way of encouraging increased knowledge sharing. One interview participant remarked that the President was Italian and she liked the metaphor of an Italian dinner table, with a lengthy meal, good food, wine, and extensive conversation as a way to foster inclusion and trust. Transferring Best Practices During the course of our Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge consulting engagement at ITC it became apparent that the employees possessed a large

78


inventory of ‘best practices’. These ranged from how to approach potential clients, to how to secure a competitive advantage in follow-on contracts. ITC had a strong culture of knowledge sharing and a solid technological infrastructure that could be brought to bear. But merely knowing that a firm has potential knowledge to share will not be enough to ensure that it gets shared or used by others. As a possibility proposition, we suggested a process of making the transfer of these best practices more pervasive as stories shared in their meetings and on their intranet and a more formal part of their processes. Team Learning, Team Building Teams – such as the volunteer Green Team that cleans up highway trash and encourages recycling in the office building, and the Internet Team which is a community of practice which helps participants to learn about software such as Dreamweaver and xml in order to build better web sites for clients – are a major part of ITC. Teams and team spirit are a significant source of its vitality and a key enabler for knowledge sharing throughout the company. Applying these ideas to ITC, a web developer described a story in which a manager and a Software Team learned to work together. ‘There was a new manager who had been doing independent consulting. As she got used to working with people she became very fair. The whole team became focused and was willing to go the extra mile.’ Similarly, the Internet Team had a manager who had some new ideas and a vision for the team. Together, the team built a new and innovative, award-winning web site for a client. Team building activities can be focused on an individual level, on the group’s operation and behavior, or on the group’s relationship to the larger organization. Stretching the company’s teamwork and current brown bag lunches, we suggested that there be a periodic ‘brown bag’ lunch focusing on facilitation and other team building activities. Team effectiveness and knowledge sharing can also be improved when the concepts of ‘team learning’ are applied. Team learning is a way to maintain a focus on a team’s collective potential. The idea is to focus on the effectiveness of the entire team rather than to reward individual performance. This was precisely what ITC did. While there was individual recognition, the focus was clearly on the team. For example, ‘Funny Money’ to spend on a team lunch or bowling outing was awarded to teams who showed great effort or outcomes. We believe that team learning techniques could help ITC become even more effective. Team learning, probably more challenging than team building, is based on conversations from which we draw insight and build shared understanding and, ultimately, shared vision. With developing knowledge and alignment in


79

mind, we expanded ITC’s current vision statement in a possibility proposition: ‘ITC values the sharing of strategic corporate knowledge with all corporate leaders. All leaders in the organization know the direction the company is headed and the roadmap for getting there. ITC holds annual offsite retreats that include all PALS and WAMS.’ Using Metaphor to Explore Teamwork, Databases and Entrepreneurial Spirit Organizational metaphors provide windows into how an organization thinks and how its members look at what happens to the organization. We looked at the language of the stories from round 1 and the interviews of round 2 and applied the insights to develop possibility propositions. During round 1 when the group shared stories, they talked about ‘links’ and ‘chains’, ‘dependencies and interdependencies’ in their system. They talked about seeds, growth, and food. Since ITC is an environmental consulting firm, the language and thought about ecosystems were a natural possibility for a metaphor. The knowledge enablers of teamwork – cooperation for shared survival and growth – and entrepreneurial spirit – the force behind growth – could be seen as vital forces in an ITC ecosystem. Using metaphors helps increase innovation and analytical thinking in the organizational environment. It also helps serve as a communications tool that helps employees reflect and engage with each other, therefore increasing team effectiveness. ITC Group showed each of these characteristics in their discussions during interviews. Correspondingly: 1. 2.

3. 4.

5.

Databases showed up as another knowledge enabler, and opportunities for internet technologies and consulting seemed to abound. Gary talked about developing an internet portal, and the Internet Team told stories about sharing links to web sites which inspired the sites they built for customers. ITC’s organizational structure was a matrix; one employee was a PAL for one project and a worker on another contract. Asking a question over the walls of the cubicles to receive an answer from anyone who had an answer was an acceptable and standard organizational practice. Commitment, as shown by volunteering for activities such as Green Team environmental care outings and recruiting parties, and putting in extra unpaid hours of work to develop a database that would help the entire organization match resources for proposals, appeared in nearly every employee we interviewed.

80


Using the insights from the ecosystem metaphor to develop possibility propositions, we looked at the way an ecosystem would transfer the equivalent of knowledge. The way one butterfly might spread pollen to multiple plants or a bird might carry seeds to different areas of ground, a knowledge concierge would span the various parts of the organization. Another possibility proposition addressed the expectation that each employee would find out an answer by asking just one person. In the way that in an ecosystem some humans might not directly eat a bug, but instead might eat the chicken that ate the bug, we developed the possibility proposition, the Three Degrees of ITC: At ITC, we understand that as we grow we may not be able to know what every single person does. But, we believe that like the six degrees from Kevin Bacon, we have the three degrees of ITC. When we need to know who does what, we send an email and ask that if they can’t answer the question they forward it to someone who might know the answer. We try to reach a person within three emails. Enlightened Leadership One clear implication of our analysis is that ITC has enlightened leadership. This is a factor that each member of our team commented upon. The four founders, who are also the majority owners, have maintained a vision for ITC that stresses a corporate commitment to customer exhilaration, collaboration, and community. One of the cultural assumptions made by the owners of ITC is that people who work for the firm don’t know everything they need to know. Consequently, knowledge sharing at the ITC Group focuses on learning who knows what and on how to connect with them. The organizational implication of this focus is that social connectedness, social relationships, and social learning must be paramount. This cultural assumption forms the foundation for ITC’s successful commitment to collaboration. The ITC ownership contends that this is one of the stronger points of their company. The Employees Like ITC Another implication of our analysis is that the vast majority of ITC employees hold a positive perception of the company. Our data are rich with examples from employees who feel strongly that ITC is moving in the right direction. Our analysis of the data showed that virtually all interviewed employees felt a strong link to ITC commitment to environmental and social organizational causes. Further evidence of this implication was seen on an evening when ITC hosted the Arlington County E-Government


81

Symposium. This after-hours event, hosted by the ITC ownership, was attended not only by Arlington County executives but also by about 20 ITC employees. We saw this as evidence of employees’ commitment to ITC’s social and organizational causes. Fun is an Organizational Objective It was clear from our interviews that fun is a driving force in ITC’s corporate culture. This implication became apparent and understood through the ASK interviews. During our interviews with the founders and majority owners, they indicated that when they decided to establish the firm, fun was a core value. They wanted to start a company where they and all employees could have some fun. The cultural underpinning for fun as a core value at ITC is the fundamental social striving for intensity and depth in human relationships. The ITC founders see these social relationships as the key to community building within the firm. Knowledge sharing at ITC is approached in a fun, informal way that combines employees’ interests in work, their care for their community and environment, and what they love to do. The ITC Group benefits from a high level of social interaction that crosses a variety of internal business units at a variety of dimensional levels. In these and many other ways, the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge model for gathering affirmation through interviews gave us a glimpse into the ITC corporate soul. ITC has the Right Culture for Knowledge Management It was clear from the outset that ITC has all of the hallmarks that would enable a successful knowledge management initiative. The new Chief Knowledge Officer’s job will be made somewhat simpler by this fact. The firm’s people are all professional and motivated by superordinate goals. They openly display commitment to a culture of knowledge sharing rather than knowledge hoarding. They are committed to a team philosophy. We feel that we made a significant contribution to the CKO’s understanding of what enables knowledge to flow throughout the organization and predisposed her to a humanist version of knowledge management rather than a technical one. The Methodology We used the interview technique to gather data to support the knowledge sharing efforts at ITC. During round 1, employees interviewed each other using the following questions (one or the other):

82


Think about a time when you shared something that you knew, which enabled you and ITC to achieve success. What happened? Tell us the story. Think about a time when you learned something from someone else that enabled you and ITC to achieve success. What happened? Tell us the story. Likewise we used the interview technique to collect data during round 2 one-to-one interviews. Seeds of appreciative knowledge sharing usually exist in small chunks in organizations. Often times, people need to hear the stories about how they are happening to give them ideas of how to take the initiative within their unit. The interview technique, along with the sharing of stories afterwards, sets up an opportunity for people to create ‘what might be’ together. Each pair went around the room and shared the stories that their partner expressed as evidence of knowledge sharing. As the individuals shared the stories, we collected key words that emerged from the stories. After we heard all of the stories, a thematic analysis was done leading to the identification of five knowledge enablers. They were: 1) informal interactions, 2) formal interactions, 3) team philosophy, 4) database sharing, and 5) internal entrepreneurship. These five KEs were explored and validated in a second round of individual interviews with 26 ITC employees. To validate the KEs we used the following questions: ●

●

●

Several people in ITC have identified informal interactions as a knowledge sharing enabler. Can you tell me something more about this? Can you describe two incidents where you found informal interactions, at their best? Or, When have you experienced a significant level of knowledge sharing through informal interactions? What are the factors or conditions that make informal interactions possible here?

Similar questions were asked for the remaining four knowledge enablers. We analyzed and coded the interview responses, leading to the creation of a matrix that balanced our five knowledge enablers (informal interactions, formal interactions, team philosophy, internal entrepreneurship, and database sharing) against eight organizational factors (organizational structure, problem solving, leadership, communication, incentives, organizational practices, community involvement, and organizational culture). The matrix provided examples of how the organizational factors at ITC enhanced the knowledge enablers. We saw these as examples of ‘what is’ at ITC.


83

We further analyzed the common themes and organized the data to come up with effective possibility propositions.1 Based on the stories that we heard repeatedly, we brainstormed for ways we could stretch what was already happening at ITC to what could be happening. We discussed and finalized our possibility propositions (which we referred to as possible action items to synchronize with their language preference) and met with ITC employees for the final round of validating the action items. The experience was a powerful one because of the extremely high positive energy that was surrounding the effort. The participants were very excited to share their knowledge and were grateful for the opportunity to reflect on what they valued at ITC. In addition, our team collected ideas about ‘what might be’ from the round 2 interviews and built a second matrix that reflected ‘Examples of What Might Be’. Following the ASK model our team conducted a comprehensive analysis of the ITC using data from the second matrix titled, ‘Examples of What Might Be’. Our analysis led us to develop a thorough list of 21 possibility propositions, or, to use their language, possible action items. We presented these possibility propositions to ITC as our recommendations of ‘What Could Be’ at the ITC Group. The Possibility Propositions In summary, we based the development of these propositions on the ‘what is’ that ITC employees reported to us during the two rounds of interviews and on the subsequent analysis and generation of ‘what might be’ at ITC. We overlaid our analysis on the model of continuance, transition, and novelty. We designed possibility propositions for ITC that would help continue that which was good, to transition to something that might be better, and to stretch provocatively into new, uncharted corporate directions. Below is that list of our provocative possibility propositions that reflect the best of ‘What Could Be’ at ITC. These 21 specific recommendations were derived from our data analysis and were selected because they were pragmatic and fit within the existing culture and processes at ITC. They form the core of our recommendations to the company. ●

Banners. Knowledge sharing is how we get things done at ITC. This includes an active transfer of knowledge to others and being receptive to new knowledge. We are also aware that knowledge sharing can occur anytime and anywhere. We decorate our office space in ways that convey ideas about what we do. We have large, brightly colored banners that say things like ‘Have you shared some knowledge today?’ and ‘Have you learned something new today?’

84

Appreciative inquiry and knowledge management ●

●

●

●

●

●

Performance appraisals. At ITC, we acknowledge and reward employees who share knowledge throughout the organization. We accomplish this through our performance appraisals, which require that an individual demonstrate a commitment to knowledge sharing within the team and/or between teams in the past year. Community involvement. At ITC, we leverage our community involvement activities to learn more about both our colleagues and our clients. The networking we do during these projects helps us: ● understand our community’s needs; ● give our employees an opportunity to meet each other and share information; ● expose our newer employees to new business development opportunities and techniques; and ● nurture our relationships with clients and discover new ways of meeting their needs. Noteworthy people. We currently recognize important Americans by naming conference rooms in their honor. This creates an awareness of his or her individual accomplishments. Periodically, we recognize individuals within ITC for their contributions to our success. We preserve the knowledge of their work and the stories of their accomplishments by dedicating spaces in their honor. Who knows what? At ITC, we have various ways to help information flow ‘across the cubicle’. In order to help people learn who knows what, we have an enticing, interactive tool for retrieving information about employees’ capabilities, backgrounds, and experiences. We attract users to this tool by featuring two people’s photos and stories on the initial intranet screen each day. On an ongoing basis, we coach our people so that they can see how this tool can make their jobs easier. We also award ‘funny money’ to every tenth person retrieving information from the tool and to the teams who best staff their projects by using the tool. Databases. ITC corporate databases are accessible, secure, and easy to use. Easily accessible and searchable databases facilitate the sharing of knowledge, improve effectiveness, and enhance productivity. Stories about the potential application of ITC database systems are continually told at team meetings by the WAMs. Individuals that have had a success using a database to find important information are given a spot award. Teams that make extensive use of the ITC databases are similarly rewarded. Knowledge concierge. At ITC, we value knowing whom to go to in order to find specific types of knowledge. Our Knowledge Concierges are cross-functional representatives of communities of


●

●

●

●

●

●

85

practice (software user groups, Creative Café, Green Team, Internet Team or other) who direct a person to another person, a database, a source, or someone else who can help. We facilitate the work of the Knowledge Concierge by encouraging them to charge to an indirect account. Mentoring. At ITC, mentoring relationships are critical to our long term success. Each of us gives and receives mentoring. We believe in ‘Each One, Teach One’. We give each new employee a mentor, who helps share best practices and basic knowledge about us and about our clients. We reward effective mentoring in our performance appraisals. We evaluate how well we each develop each other into effective contributors to our knowledge base. Best practices. ITC captures internal and external best practices and actively shares them throughout the company. We at ITC completely understand our value proposition of ‘customer intimacy’, have defined what ‘best practices’ means to us, and understand our core processes. We transfer our best practices through verbal discussions, ITC newsletter articles, and through IT enabled means. By sharing what we do best, we become more productive and effective, thus delighting our clients. Retreats. At ITC, we share strategic corporate knowledge with all corporate leaders. Top management reinforces knowledge sharing by promoting it at company-wide meetings and in every possible communication. ITC holds annual offsite retreats that include all PALs and WAMs. Walking the talk. PALs and WAMs support the practice of knowledge sharing through teams by modeling the behaviors of top management. All employees know the direction the company is headed and the roadmap for getting there. PALs and WAMs walk the talk by holding fun, informal monthly meetings and by actively practicing the example set by the senior managers. Show and tell (and ask). We leverage every small group meeting to share something that we know. Team leaders put Show and Tell (and Ask) on the agenda. We take the first five minutes of every team or small-group meeting to share one thing that someone has recently learned and to ask one question that has come up about our work. Continuing education. ITC has a bulletin board in the kitchen where we post brochures from local universities offering degrees, certificate programs, and continuing education opportunities in information technology, organizational learning, environmental studies, and business management. The tuition reimbursement policy hangs at the top of the bulletin board. Next to it hangs the procedure for the reimbursement

86


●

●

●

●

of books for the professional development of our employees. ITC reimburses the full cost of tuition and books to our employees who participate in approved educational programs. In addition, employees may petition for reimbursement for other programs. Three degrees of connection. At ITC, we understand that as we grow, we may not be able to know what every single person does. But we believe that like the ‘six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon’, we have the ‘three degrees of connection’ within ITC. When we need to know who does what, we send an email and ask that if the recipient can’t answer the question, then they forward the question to someone who might know the answer. We try to reach the knower within three emails. The knower emails the answer back to all previous recipients of the request so that everyone can learn both the answer and the knower’s area of expertise. (Note: we tie this into our communities of practice and our Knowledge Concierges.) Seminar goodies. Here at ITC, we leverage what we learn from outside our organization. Whenever one of us attends a seminar or conference, we take responsibility for sharing the highlights of what we experienced with our colleagues during the week after we return to the office. This sharing happens in informal gatherings, brown bag lunches, or formal presentations. At a minimum, our colleagues bring back to us at least one ‘freebie’, such as a conference pencil or a piece of hotel stationery. They might bring back a specialty from the geographic area, such as jambalaya mix from New Orleans or soft pretzels from Philadelphia. They use this item to spark a discussion in some way related to the event they attended. We also post this information on our intranet and use it as an online discussion topic, focusing on how to use new knowledge in the support of our customers. Baseball card trading. At ITC, we have business cards for internal use that are like baseball cards. They have our pictures on them and contain statistics such as what teams we’re on, what software we know, our learning style or our Myers-Briggs type, or what positions we’ve played (jobs we’ve held at ITC). They also have a little bit of personal information such as where we were born, how many kids we have, and our favorite hobby. The cards are exchanged at team meetings, brown bag lunches, monthly corporate-wide events, community of practice/user group meetings, or Monday morning breakfasts. If we end up with more than one card from a particular employee, we can trade with someone else. The person who collects the most cards (not including duplicates) wins tickets for four to an Orioles game. Knowledge poster. Along with our candy bowl to new employees, we give them a blank poster for autographs. When employees visit the


●

●

●

●

87

newcomer, the visitors sign their autographs and add a few words about what they do, like to do, area where they work, or area of expertise. The new employee is left with a reminder of who visited and a source of people to turn to and what areas a person might know about. Coffee talk. At ITC we value brainstorming, informal interactions, and mindful ‘listening around’ as ways to share knowledge. We have transformed our kitchen into an in-house café à la Barnes and Noble and Starbucks. We use the space to grab coffee and talk about our projects and about what’s going on in our work. We have installed comfortable couches and tables near our shelf of books to encourage a relaxed, informal atmosphere for sharing. Team facilitation. ITC dedicates two brown bag lunches every year on how to facilitate, build, and sustain successful teams. Each attendee of the lunches receives a Payday candy bar and a coupon for lunch at Whitlow’s to remind us that effective team discussions result in greater business and financial rewards, both to ourselves and our clients. Lightning bolts. ITC has a ‘Spark’ award for sharing an idea or piece of knowledge. Any employee can award a lightning bolt to a colleague who has either shared a sparking idea, or who has employed someone else’s idea to spark a new idea of their own. Each lightning bolt contains a description of the sparking or sparked idea, the signature of the awarding colleague, the name of the recipient, and the date the idea was sparked. The accumulated lightning bolts hang on the recipient’s outside cubicle wall so that others can see who shares lots of ideas and what the ideas were. The recipient also gets specific feedback about who has benefited from the sharing of their knowledge. Knowledge vision. At ITC, our knowledge management strategy supports both our corporate strategy and our competitive advantage of customer intimacy. This vision guides our efforts in applying IT to knowledge management. We have an easy-to-use, browser-based corporate intranet. Easily accessible, secure, and searchable information facilitates and improves knowledge sharing and increases the effectiveness of our people.

As mentioned above, we presented the possibility propositions to ITC staff as the best of ‘What Could Be’ at ITC. We designed our session mindful of the need to overcome the general tendency to resist change by asking the ITC employees to thoughtfully consider these ‘What Could Be’ items and transform them into ‘What Should Be’ action. The group involvement in the review and reworking of the possibility propositions

88


were designed to help overcome any resistance to change. We had envisioned a vote on the 21 items above by a ‘valencing’ or prioritizing activity to reduce the total number of ‘action items’ to five manageable issues. Two things became clear during this stage. First, much of what we proposed was warmly welcomed. The problem of overcoming resistance was not as severe as we had anticipated. Having senior management ownership is critical to the success of an ASK program. Even though we would have preferred a final decision, we left the organization with a sponsor and a plan. The CKO took it upon herself to put these proposals in place. Second, the ITC Group needed more time to consider these possibility propositions. Hence, we adjourned the evening with the understanding that the CKO would keep the above ballot of possibility propositions taped to ITC’s walls in order to give staff more time for a comprehensive review of our recommendations. The CKO indicated that she herself would perform the valencing of these provocative possibility propositions at some time in the future. These 21 possibility propositions constituted the recommendations to the ITC staff. The entire process was productive because we uncovered a long list of knowledge enablers that can serve to guide the CKO in her design of the future knowledge management program at ITC. She now has a much clearer picture of what really works and, more importantly, the culture of knowledge sharing within ITC. Creating these propositions generated a significant amount of energy within the organization. The challenges at ITC were different from the ones you will see at GCB below. While you’ll see similarities in the approaches, you’ll see very different outcomes. The common denominator was the energy generated to create lasting knowledge sharing. In the case study of Green Capital Bank2 below, we guide you step by step on how to create and sustain that energy.

GREEN CAPITAL BANK GCB is one of America’s largest diversified financial services organizations, providing regional banking, corporate banking, real estate finance, assetbased lending, asset management, global fund services, and mortgage banking. In the late 1990s, after a series of mergers and acquisitions at Green Capital Bank, knowledge sharing was ebbing. When departing employees lost their jobs due to the identification of redundant positions, they took vast amounts of important knowledge with them. Moving into a protectionist mode, many of those remaining hoarded knowledge for turf protection and competitive advantage over their co-workers.


89

In order to facilitate the knowledge sharing that would see the bank through the many changes in industry policy, processes, and technology, the bank’s organizational learning department began to study the latest thinking on knowledge management as a way to incorporate knowledge sharing in GCB. This department was responsible for the training and professional development of all company employees. Their goal was to keep management and employees across business units up to date with current best practices, processes, technology, laws, and policies in the banking industry. They hired one of the authors to help the department build a culture of effective knowledge management in order to demonstrate knowledge sharing behaviors and climate to the rest of the bank. The ASK methodology was started at GCB out of sheer necessity. The amount of changes happening (and still happening) in the banking industry were significant, creating all kinds of new knowledge (procedures, rules, technology, etc.) and the need to better acquire and share the existence of new processes and employee knowledge. The Challenge Keeping employees at the cutting edge of knowledge in the banking field is a big challenge. In the late 1990s, bank technology and operations had become extremely sophisticated with the institution of centralized loan centers and ‘bank by phone’ services, as well as the proliferation of 24 hour automatic teller machines and the advent of internet banking and investing. At the same time, employees were still expected to provide top-notch, individualized, face-to-face customer service for clients with a more traditional or conservative approach. Sharing knowledge was vital to maintain GCB’s competitive edge and sustained financial growth. New knowledge sharing challenges arose as a result of the various mergers GCB had undertaken. As ‘redundant’ employees left the organization, vast amounts of information and knowledge – company history, client relationships, and wisdom gained by experience – left with them. Some remaining employees began to: (1) hoard knowledge to establish a competitive advantage over employees with similar positions and responsibilities, (2) hold on to knowledge as a means of protecting their turf, (3) create a perception that there was so much extra work after the mergers that there was little time left to share knowledge. In the words of one employee, ‘We see [knowledge sharing] as critical, but time-consuming. Sharing is highly valuable, but a low priority.’ GCB’s organizational learning department recognized these challenges to meeting their goal of corporate-wide knowledge sharing. They also realized that they could not force people to change; knowledge sharing could

90


not be mandated. The corporate culture and climate that did not provide incentives to share knowledge had to change instead. The real question became: How does one create a new knowledge sharing culture as quickly and painlessly as possible? GCB chose to use the ASK process with the intention that it would address this knowledge management challenge. A Hesitation The idea of an appreciative or prospective approach – starting with proficiencies, rather than deficiencies – was not immediately embraced by the department. In fact, a handful of GCB employees viewed the concept with great skepticism. Their apprehension was not unexpected; much of our society operates counter to the prospective concept. Typically, quality experts check for insufficient quality, mechanics look for problems with our automobiles, and consultants strive to identify companies’ shortcomings. Social sciences and psychology have also ended up with the view that human beings are typically lacking something. Over the last century psychology has focused almost entirely on pathology and deficits. Following the science of medicine, it has been structured around disease as its model. It is natural to have many skeptics question the ASK methodology. In such a situation, which is more common than one might think, it is better to start with a pilot and hopefully create a shift in the mindset of those who might have been initially doubtful. In the GCB event, the ambassadors were asked to consider the benefits of having as many people participate in the event as possible. This was suggested as an opportunity to uncover organization-wide examples of current practices at all levels at GCB. While the core team understood inherently what it meant to ‘appreciate’, they needed to gain a deeper understanding of how the process of appreciation works in order to apply it to the project within the bank. An example was needed for the consultant to address their apprehension and to explain the benefits of an ‘appreciative mindset’. The consultant noted the difference between how two people may look at similar paintings – one at an art museum and the other at a flea market. Assuming neither person is an art critic, the person at the art museum is likely to have a better appreciation of the painting than the person viewing a similar painting at the flea market. Because she is in the art museum, she has an appreciative mindset – intentionally looking for beauty in the details, looking hard to see what might have made the experts see the painting as worthy of being placed in the museum. As she looks intently, she sees aspects of the painting that someone with a casual mindset at a flea market might miss. An


91

interpretation that the painting is ‘beautiful’ or ‘exquisite’, because of the appreciative context, is more likely. Applying this principle to the knowledge sharing process, it was explained that the group could use an Appreciative Inquiry method with GCB employees to find and expand the pockets of knowledge sharing that were already occurring. By focusing on the present successes in knowledge sharing (rather than failures) – the way the art museum visitor focused on the painting’s beauty – already supported and existing knowledge sharing details could be uncovered in the culture. With the awareness of what enabled employees to share what they knew, coupled with the energy generated from the realization of what was already being done well, employees could become aware of possibilities for the future and could set their own action items to build a new culture that emphasizes the existence of knowledge sharing programs. GCB decided to use the Appreciative Inquiry approach to knowledge management in the organizational learning department, betting that the momentum and lessons learned would spread to the rest of the organization. The approach would not put people on the spot – no fingers would be pointed and no blame would obscure the process: it would allow everyone to share whatever they knew, regardless of perceived significance. GCB felt that the best way to capitalize on tacit and distributed knowledge would be to encourage people to share it in whatever way they were comfortable, rather than in ways that were mandated by upper levels of hierarchy. Step 1: Negotiating Top Management Commitment and Support The decision to use ASK was unanimous. There was considerable energy and anticipation for getting started. At the same time, GCB staff recognized that ASK entailed reframing the way they looked at knowledge management. They also realized that it was crucial to hear the voices of everyone as part of the process. (People could not be forced to share knowledge just because of a management decision to do so.) Therefore everyone in GCB’s organizational learning department was invited to take part in a pilot ASK process. Experience suggests that the answers lie in getting a strong buy-in from top management and in involving as many internal staff as possible to plan and run the ASK process. While a bottom-up approach to ASK is also possible, it is more effective and efficient to start with a top-down approach of strong management support. In many cases, the outcome of an ASK initiative may depend on some strategic decisions from management. It is also important to

92


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


communicate clearly the expectations from various partners, including the client and the consultant. It should be done in a manner that would recognize the emergent properties of the ASK process. That is, it should communicate the possibility that there may very well be an escalation of commitment from various stakeholders leading to renewed enthusiasm about being part of the ASK process. AT GCB, there were four key points to initiating the ASK. 1. Support the group in examining, understanding, and making the decision to initiate a positive approach to information sharing through ASK. This is best done by exploring with the client at least three important approaches to knowledge management and change and then leaving the decision to the client. It is quite appropriate for the consultant to reveal his or her predisposition for ASK but it must be made clear that s/he will go by the consensus that may emerge. 2. Construct and hold a ‘pilot event’. When a consultant is invited into an organization, much of the work of setting the stage is potentially in progress. Active participation in a pilot allows the group to fully participate, ultimately learning as they go. The pilot allows the consultant and the group to identify active occurrences of and to inquire and share examples of knowledge sharing and what made these activities of sharing possible. 3. Create an ongoing process of integrating what the participants learned in the event. This allows the participants to adopt emerging designs or processes that might be more suitable than what was planned in advance.


4.

93

Sustain the momentum. Taking the information gathered from the pilot event to the decision making group is essential to securing top management support for a full ASK process in the key parts or the whole organization.

The pilot (the process of ‘learning as you go’) created a positive experience to build on for the future organization-wide ASK process. In most cases, the success of the pilot generates self-confidence in the staff and the consultant in pursuing a process that many in an organization might characterize as too soft or touchy-feely. During the pilot the group realized that there would be a need for additional ‘hands’ during the organization-wide event. GCB debated whether to hire additional outside consultants to facilitate or train internal people to work with the large number of employees who accepted the invitation to participate in the ASK event. The bank chose to use its own employees because it believed that would help in capacity building within the bank and may lead to better acceptance of the method in the long run. GCB, like many other organizations, had seen consultants coming in, doing their interventions, and then leaving without having transferred much of their knowledge. Above all, using their own staff would save money. To impart the ASK training, the consultant organized a daylong workshop for 16 GCB staff who were chosen by the bank. The day’s content and process were designed such that it would be a condensed version of what would be run at the forthcoming organization-wide two-day event. The goal of the one-day workshop was to train the 16 chosen employees as facilitators for the two-day event. The trained facilitators for the project became known as the knowledge ambassadors. The ambassadors would help conduct the two-day meeting and have an ongoing role in keeping the process alive and growing over time. The knowledge ambassadors introduced the concept of Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge to the rest of the employees using more or less the same materials that had been used to introduce the concept to the facilitators on earlier occasions. Step 2: Presenting the Appreciative Knowledge Sharing Paradigm How an event is opened is foundational to what will be accomplished. Why? To a large extent, the opening sets the stage for expectations, especially for a new tool such as ASK which at that time did not have a track record of accomplishments to reassure skeptical participants. In such cases, good context setting about how the process was chosen by the bank and a strong statement

94


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


of support from leadership that they would ‘go all the way’ with the process are important. After such a speech from GCB’s management at the senior vicepresident level advocating for the process and encouraging full participation, the department began the main purpose of the event – ASK. As the beginning of step 2, each employee ‘interviewed’ another person to hear his or her stories about knowledge sharing currently happening at GCB. Steps 3 and 4: Identification and Expansion of Knowledge Enablers Through Appreciative Interviews Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8



95

The ASK process begins with an Appreciative Inquiry to discover examples of the identified topic: knowledge sharing. The process utilizes an appreciative interviewing technique where all participants divide into pairs and interview their partners to hear stories about knowledge sharing currently happening. Next, the larger group shares the highlights of the stories from the pairs. Interview questions Interview questions are selected carefully by paying attention to the context of the project. If the client is interested in a specific aspect of knowledge management, the question below will have to be customized to reflect that. Otherwise, the generic question about knowledge sharing that we used at GCB bank is given below. The focus of the interviews is intentionally on events and incidents where knowledge sharing occurred. 1. Think about a few recent positive experiences you have had in this organization with respect to knowledge sharing. Describe one such event when you felt most alive, excited, valued, or appreciated. Follow-up questions

a) What made it a significant positive experience? Or, what is it about the experience that you continue to cherish? b) What did you learn from that experience? 2. Name an event where one of your colleagues recently did something exemplary (outstanding/highly successful) with respect to knowledge sharing. What did s/he do? Follow-up questions

a) What did you admire in her/him? b) How has that (what s/he did) contributed to the success of the organization? It is important to always get a full description of incidents. Each interviewer is asked to steer the interview to hearing more about what happened rather than why it happened. The suggestion is to allow at least 15 minutes per interview or a total of 30 minutes for this interview process. GCB took the step of identifying knowledge sharing behaviors that were already occurring at their two-day ASK event, held at a bright and welcoming conference center. For many participants, as the first day began, hope was running high. Others, however, were quietly skeptical, believing that the event would become yet another top-down mandated initiative.

96


A few employees greeted the event with a fair amount of cynicism – expecting that change would last only as long as the event itself. Participants of the conference were seated ten to a table with members of their own business unit and one or two trained knowledge ambassadors. Interviewees were encouraged to tell the story with full details and the interviewers were reminded to ask ‘what’ questions rather than ‘why’. It was pointed out that ‘what’ questions typically generate data and understanding while ‘why’ questions tend to elicit an emotional response and generate interpretation as opposed to data. ‘What’ questions tend to make respondents more comfortable while ‘why’ questions create apprehension and hesitation. No questions about justification of actions were allowed so that storytellers could share openly without fear of criticism or need for justification. The interviewers were encouraged to practice active listening, a way of communicating to provide a ‘mirror’, allowing the respondents to hear what they said, thus providing an opportunity to clarify or be further understood. Active listening includes showing explicit, unconditional respect for what the interviewees are sharing and not questioning the validity of their responses. It is natural for both the interviewee and the interviewer to engage in some problem solving without even realizing it. Hence, the intentional or mindful focus on what worked as opposed to what did not. In this case, with the help of the knowledge ambassadors, interviewers actively created a non-judgmental climate for conversation during the interviews. For example, one staff member talked about the nature of the customer complaints received in the call centers and how she designed a process to handle them on the spot. The interviewer did not ask why complaints were occurring in the first place, why there was a need for training, or why the call center staff were not previously trained in handling difficult callers. Instead, the focus was on finding what she did by engaging in a series of ‘what happened next’ questions and by repeating her answers to receive confirmation that she had been heard correctly and understood. Each ‘what happened next’, or ‘what did you do,’ or ‘tell me more about it’, question led to the unfolding of a layer of information about specific knowledge sharing practices. Some participants began slowly, observing other pairs in action. Others wiggled in their seats, uncomfortable with the word ‘story’, which initially sounded not business-like or not bottom line oriented. Yet, within a few minutes, the roar of conversation could be heard in the ballroom. The observers could see and hear the excitement mounting. A key question at this point is: What makes it possible to share knowledge – what ‘enables’ people to be open to participating in this process? As the term ‘knowledge enablers’ literally indicates, the goal is to identify the kind of processes, values, beliefs, and competencies that encourage,


97

prompt, facilitate, or cause stakeholders in an organization to share the knowledge they possess. Some may not believe that their knowledge is of value. It is through this process that people feel more connected with others and their organizations. The next step in Appreciative Knowledge Sharing is to purposely identify the known and unknown knowledge enablers (see below). The importance of this process cannot be emphasized enough: the KEs are the building blocks of desired and productive knowledge sharing behaviors. KEs will vary from organization to organization, though some aspects like respect or valuing others appear to be a universal enabler to help people share knowledge. In the ASK process, the focus is to identify what is unique to the organization around knowledge sharing. An example might be: What are the values or competencies that currently exist in the organization that, if removed, will fundamentally change the flow or character of knowledge sharing? Or, what are the non-negotiable aspects that if left unattended or ignored for a period of time will lead to a gradual decline in knowledge sharing? For example, let us say respect emerged as a knowledge enabler in the above mentioned large investment banking firm. In this moderately hierarchical organization, members took great care in valuing everyone’s input. It did not matter whether you were the mailroom clerk, a junior analyst, or the Vice President. The analyst was respected for her research reports even though she did not have the lengthy experience of senior analysts. Because she felt respected, she was eager and highly committed to contribute to the success of the organization by sharing what she knew. However, if she felt unwanted or insecure, her motivation to share would be limited. Once the interviews were over, the participants were asked to share the stories they heard from their partners. As these stories were shared, the key themes were captured on a whiteboard. When you carry out this process, do not spend too much time in wordsmithing – give a name to whatever theme stands out from a story and add it to the whiteboard list. It is crucial not to ask any justifying questions of those sharing. Accept whatever is shared and thank them for doing so. This is a very important aspect of the process. Locating the themes Make a first cut or merging of the themes to generate only a dozen of them by grouping similarly named or interrelated themes. For instance, honesty, trust, and trustworthiness might be categorized under Trust. With the help of the participants, look at the listed themes again and narrow the list down to four to six. In an ASK initiative, these themes are called knowledge enablers. As mentioned earlier, they are the building blocks of knowledge sharing, enabling the knowledge sharing process.

98


It is important to note that every group or organization will have its own unique combination of knowledge enablers that reflect its own values. Because the group itself has identified them and come to consensus about them, it is not possible to have any ‘wrong’ answers. After GCB interview pairs shared their stories with each other, the larger group at the table shared the highlights of the stories from the pairs with the facilitation of the knowledge ambassadors. The stories were filled with real-life examples of moments of knowledge sharing within GCB: ● ●

●

A customer service director at the loan center recounted how she had received communication techniques to help frustrated customers. A program supervisor in the training department shared how information from the branch business unit helped him set up more effective educational programs. A new recruit in the investment division told how a fellow employee went the extra mile and spent hours after work to show her the ins and outs of their investment analysis software.

As participants shared their success stories, initial reluctance to talk or to share in depth was replaced by enthusiasm. A palpable sense of energy overtook each table, and even those who admitted to initial skepticism toward yet another company initiative became highly involved. As each story was repeated, the knowledge ambassador for each group captured the themes of each story on a flip chart page. General themes such as honesty, empowerment, recognition, respect, teamwork, valuing others, and building relationships appeared. The themes identified the ‘knowledge enablers’ or what conditions, policies, or behaviors were present when knowledge was shared. Participants listened intently and began noticing additional themes and trends in the responses. GCB began to discover, define, and then come to consensus about the knowledge enablers that they wanted to cultivate in their organization. Narrowing the list With nearly one hundred people at ten tables, there were flip charts everywhere with long lists of themes. It was, therefore, necessary to condense the long list of themes into four or five in an inclusive way as much as possible. Without a small list, it would be difficult to stay focused on a strategy and assign responsibility later in the process for various implementation issues. Consequently, the groups at the tables analyzed their lists to determine which were most important to the group. The knowledge ambassadors led the process to make a first cut of the themes by grouping similarly named or interrelated themes. For instance,


99

as noted earlier, honesty, trust, and trustworthiness were categorized under Trust. Participants actively narrowed the list to the following four themes: empowerment, respect, teamwork, and building relationships. Knowledge Enabler 1: Empowerment Empowerment is evident when individuals in an organization gradually acquire the autonomy, freedom, and authority to make decisions that are appropriate within the domain of their influence. In GCB, the overwhelming evidence showed that when employees felt empowered they shared what they knew and listened to others more readily. For example, a story was told about an employee who designed a distance education training module on her own and shared what she had done directly with her colleagues across bank divisions. Her supervisor was happy to see his staff take such initiative and felt that as more of his staff acted to initiate changes, more knowledge sharing would happen in his division. Knowledge Enabler 2: Respect Respect is present when individuals are affirmed and granted a certain degree of recognition based on their accomplishments or contribution to the organization. Respect is about noticing what an individual has done as objectively as possible without the filters of stereotypes based on race, gender, and other forms of difference. In respect, there is an active and mindful process of valuing without stereotypical judging. In GCB, respect emerged as an energizing force from the stories shared. A woman from a minority ethnic group who had once felt disrespected and undervalued began to share more knowledge with her manager and entire team after her manager took the time to sit down and talk with her and learn what she had done. As the conversation progressed, the manager began to understand and appreciate the contributions she had made to the group that had gone unnoticed in the past. Through his acknowledgement of the value the individual had added to the group, the manager showed respect, which in turn made the employee feel that she belonged to the group. From this position of acceptance, the employee was motivated to share more deliberately the tacit knowledge she had picked up over the years. Knowledge Enabler 3: Teamwork Teamwork is the process of working together in a group that has come together voluntarily or by design. It is the process that enables the pooling together of various intangible resources of individual members such that

100


collective knowledge is always more than what would have been generated by the mere summation of individual knowledge. In the organizational learning department of GCB it looked like teamwork was a time-tested concept. The stories shared exhibited a level of genuineness that didn’t look like a manufactured or forced version of teamwork. For example, a team member involved in a project with her teammates reported that there was a great deal of communication in her team, which included using weekly teleconferences. Everyone’s ideas were welcomed. They provided pre-meeting information and the team actively kept open lines of communication. Eventually, the project turned out to be a massive, cross-market project. These efforts resulted in an accessible team where any member of the team could call anyone anytime and would get a friendly, welcoming response. Knowledge Enabler 4: Building Relationships Building relationships is an element of what has recently been called ‘social capital formation’. Social capital can be defined as the features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social capital is ‘the set of elements of the social structure that affects relations among people and are inputs for the production and/or utility function’ (Schiff, 1992, p. 160). It may be considered as the goodwill that is engendered by the fabric of social relations. A growing body of new research in management suggests that social capital is a differentiating variable at individual and group level for career growth and organizational effectiveness. Knowledge sharing stories in the bank clearly pointed toward building relationships. In the story of the new recruit who learned about the investment analysis software, both the experienced employee and the newcomer developed a friendship that led to further knowledge sharing between the two women. Identifying Common KEs The knowledge ambassadors from each table then shared their list so everyone in the room could hear the summary of themes. While each table had its own special combination of knowledge enablers, there were commonalities across tables. The four knowledge enablers common to the larger group were empowerment, respect, teamwork, and building relationships. Within the appreciative knowledge management perspective, the knowledge enablers were extremely important for knowledge sharing to happen in GCB’s organizational learning department. And yet the entire process, from asking the first interview question to finding the four common themes of the entire room, took only two hours. Not only did the group determine what makes sharing knowledge possible and probable, they had modeled


101

the actual act of knowledge sharing through the process of utilizing the Appreciative Inquiry process. As is often the case, at the end of this segment participants indicated surprise at the amount of successful knowledge sharing that had been happening unnoticed, and felt an enthusiastic connection at the common themes discovered at their table. During the remainder of the two-day event, the focus was for the attendees to understand the interconnection of these factors, what facilitated their existence, and how participants could make them more routine in order to enhance knowledge sharing. Step 5: Thematic Analysis of the Data Using Knowledge Infrastructure Factors At the GCB event, there was a definite attempt to put the information into a manageable framework that would connect the knowledge enablers with KIFs. The objective was to find ways to enhance the knowledge enablers identified so that knowledge sharing would become a continuous, sustainable, long term activity. The consultant and facilitators organized the knowledge enablers, KIFs, and previously collected success stories in a large table. Across the top of the table, they listed the knowledge enablers and along the side they listed the infrastructure factors. The knowledge ambassadors plastered sticky notes with examples (from the interview stories) into the cells of the matrix. Once each group of participants had added its notes, a subset of the table looked like Table 5.1. Many stories overlapped different knowledge Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


102


Table 5.1 Knowledge sharing matrix with specific examples (not all KIFs and KEs are shown) Knowledge Infrastructure Factors

Knowledge Enablers Empowerment

Leadership – Vision – Strategic focus – Accountabilities

Decision Making – Priorities – Goals

Organizational Practices – Teams – Cross-LOB teams – Planning process – Hiring – Promotion – Performance – What is valued

Respect


I felt respected and valued after my manager took the time to sit down and talk with me and listened to me with great respect. I volunteered for several event responsibilities and shared more with other facilitators when I felt like we were empowered to shape the outcome of the event.

I learned communication techniques from the loan center to help my call center’s frustrated customers. I was able to accept more information from them because they showed great respect for my position and because in the end, they let me make the decision on how to handle customers.

A program supervisor in the training department shared how information from the branch business unit helped him set up more effective educational programs.

I learned communication techniques from the loan center to help my call center’s frustrated customers. I was able to accept more information from them because they showed great respect for my position.

Just after I was hired, one of my co-workers spent hours after work to show me the ins and outs of their investment analysis software. I volunteered for several event responsibilities and shared more with other facilitators when I felt like we were empowered to shape the outcome of the event.


103

enablers and knowledge infrastructure factors. Such unanimity suggested that there were indeed an underlying set of knowledge enablers in that organization and that the process thus far was producing valid results. From this matrix, GCB employees made sense of the stories they had heard, making it possible to identify trends and patterns of current knowledge sharing. They began to see the evidence of potential possibilities to expand what they already do well in knowledge sharing. It was an affirmation that significant potential existed in the organization to move forward, making the best use of what they already do well. They recognized the importance of knowledge sharing for the continued growth of the organization in the highly competitive environment in which GCB existed. The clear trend as evidenced in the matrix gave them the confidence and courage to think strategically about what more might be possible, in concrete terms, to accelerate knowledge sharing in ways that would contribute to GCB’s competitive advantage – and long term existence. Step 6: Constructing Future-Present Scenario Statements With the active involvement of its employees and based on concrete evidence, the ASK process so far has identified for GCB the knowledge enablers and the organizational infrastructural factors that supported them. A logical question that emerges at this point is ‘How will the organization sustain these knowledge enablers?’ Given that entropy is a natural occurrence in all systems, GCB must find ways to prevent the knowledge enablers from becoming entropic. Not only that, they must find ways to enhance the enablers since – again based on systems theory – they cannot stay the same. Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


104


The enablers would either decline or grow. The ASK process deals with this need to prevent entropy and enhance knowledge enablers by creating a vision for what might be possible based on what is already present (as opposed to what is absent). It is called future-present scenario statements. Once GCB’s knowledge enablers were identified and understood in the framework of the bank’s infrastructure, building on them was possible by helping individuals imagine the ideal future as if it had already happened. ASK participants constructed the future-present scenario statements for each knowledge enabler and knowledge infrastructure. The process, as applied at GCB, included hour long gatherings every Monday where the group listened to one another and heard whatever anyone had to say. This occurred no matter how busy the participants were. At these meetings, information was shared about the projects in progress, making space for the input and concerns of those with information or seeking answers to questions. Also, discussions were held regarding what was to be – or could be – achieved during the coming week(s) and, again, inputs were sought from others in accomplishing them. Specific responsibilities were given to everyone regarding what was to be accomplished. Friday afternoons become regular meeting times to take stock of what had been accomplished and what was to be learned from these experiences. These were called ‘weekly reflections’. As they finished creating the FPS after long hours of work, the consultant asked the group if they wanted to continue working. The answer was a definite, positive ‘yes’ thanks to the high energy and momentum that built up throughout the day. Although they were nearing the end of the first day of the event, participants were still enlivened. Conversation between tables had opened up and employees from all business units chatted with each other about productive ways they could work beneficially together after the event was over. These were a lively exchange of ‘why nots’ and ‘can we’ questions that opened up new and innovative ways of achieving together. Next, using the same matrix they had used for earlier analysis, participants created their own future-present scenarios for each of the knowledge enablers and infrastructure components (see Table 5.2). While some of the propositions in the matrix didn’t seem extraordinary to some participants, knowledge ambassadors reminded everyone that the statements showed what was possible and desired, but not already occurring. Ending the day The GCB employees began to see more than common interests and needs: they saw ways to build a common future of excellence. The day ended with a feeling of pride over the work that had been accomplished and a curiosity about what would happen the next day.

105


Table 5.2

Examples of possibility propositions

Knowledge Infrastructure Factors Leadership – Vision – Strategic focus – Accountabilities

Decision Making – Priorities – Goals


Respect


Every employee in the business unit is free to be a leader by being a revolving chairperson for our Friday afternoon meetings.

Leaders show respect by accepting and acting on team members’ ideas. Leaders show respect by listening fully and then asking questions rather than contradicting ideas.

Leaders build relationships by sharing information through meetings and eating lunch with new employees.

Trainers are acknowledged by their leaders at June and December program events for contributions with regard to knowledge sharing.

We, as leaders, participate in both informal and formal knowledge sharing through ‘water cooler’ meetings and learning communities; thus teamwork.

Leaders trust the ideas, experience, knowledge, and opinions of staff members and are considered in the decision making process.

We include key stakeholders in knowledge sharing activities.

To communicate what different lines of business are doing, we hold a yearly knowledge fair. To show the respect for each others’ work, each line of business is

Business presentations are shared with all TPS service partners.

Risk taking is encouraged and supported by our unit managers. Trainers are empowered to implement changes to program delivery and share results with peers.

Communication – How people know what others are working on – How knowledge is gained in communication

We consistently provide data for the knowledge sharing repository during and after the project, such that it can be used by all.

The trainers work on assigning crossfunctional projects that increase crossfunctional knowledge.

We facilitate various Regional Community Bank programs to educate our service partners.

106

Table 5.2


(continued)

Knowledge Infrastructure Factors


Respect


invited to have a booth. All participants visit each booth to find out about others’ projects.

We meet with sector managers and coaches on a bi-weekly basis to educate them on the in-branch experience.

To respond to these feelings, a debriefing was done at the end of the day. GCB employees expressed both excitement and exhaustion. They were pleased with what they had accomplished by the evening but also felt the need to take a break for the evening. Afterwards, the consultant provided his own interpretation of the day by stating that he had noticed a remarkable seriousness and commitment on the part of the staff to create concrete outcomes from the series of activities they were engaged with. He also commented on the absence of blaming others or ‘pointing fingers’ of any sort. The consultant shared his sense of satisfaction in seeing a large number of people working with a clear focus and purpose. Meanwhile, an internal community of practice group in the bank had planned an after-dinner cultural-entertainment event. The dinner was organized in a large hall and several skits followed immediately after it. Most of them were around the theme of ASK as CoP and made direct references to the activities of the day. The skits had several role-plays that made funny references to and made examples of various knowledge enablers and FPS. This allowed the employees to look at the whole approach as something fun and meaningful. Secondly, the skits that went into the night allowed a continuity to be maintained towards the following day. Step 7: Consensual Validation of Future-Present Scenario Statements The decision to add a second day to an ASK initiation project should be made carefully. In this case, the large number of GCB employees participating made it necessary to have extra time for processing the emerging data. Secondly, a pace that allows for a two-day event tends not to rush important decisions. A single day to process the vast amount of data generated would have been clearly insufficient. Further, having an overnight reflection time was certainly facilitative for the concluding but important activities that were to follow the next day. In the case of GCB, the overnight


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


107

reflection time brought forward the resolve of the group to complete the important steps they had started the previous day. A certain kind of clarity about what knowledge sharing in GCB is and should be was evident in the participants. There was a new level of confidence and assertiveness in many members. The tentativeness that had been present in a few during the beginning of the previous day had all but disappeared as they took charge and participated with enthusiasm. Even then, there were a few stragglers grabbing a last-minute cup of coffee as the knowledge ambassadors greeted participants at their tables. After a quick review of the previous day’s process, the groups went back to work attentively. With the help of the knowledge ambassadors, they checked the completed FPS from the previous day against the criteria of commitment, groundedness, and inspiration. Then the groups visited other tables, commenting on each others’ statements the accomplishments that had been made already. Eventually, based on learning from others, a revised set of FPS or propositions were written. Writing future-present scenario statements was an exciting activity for the GCB employees. Having an opportunity to participate in creating an innovative knowledge sharing process as a continuing reality was appealing to them because it allowed them to express the sense of belonging they had felt for the organization and the process itself. It was very much like affirming McGregor’s classic theory Y that, given an opportunity, employees will work without supervision and will autonomously contribute to the good of the organization. Thanks to the commitment and enthusiasm of GCB participants, a large number of future-present scenarios were generated. However, it wouldn’t

108


be realistic to act on all of them, hence the need to prioritize them using a set of criteria. The criteria allowed the scenarios to be categorized into a sequence of various action steps. They were the importance or idealness of the future-present scenario, how much of it may actually be present in the organization, and how soon GCB employees wanted it realized in the organization. Once the FPS had been written, they were checked again against the criteria listed in the previous section. The various groups were asked to look at other FPS and comment on each others’ statements so that eventually a revised set of scenarios could be written. Once this was done, everyone in the group/audience was asked to prioritize, rank, or rate them using the following three questions: How much of an ideal is it? (How important is it?) 5 4 3 2 1 VERY MUCH NOT MUCH How much of it may already be present? 5 4 3 A LOT

2

1 NOT MUCH

Realistically, how soon do you want this to happen? Immediately

Short Term (within six months)

Long Term (within two years)

A final rewriting and revision of the statements incorporated the comments and sentiments received from other groups. As mentioned above, the next step was the groups at their tables rating the importance of each FPS. To do this, the group listed the final statements on their own flip chart pages at the front of the ballroom. The top half of each flip chart contained an FPS written in large letters. The bottom half of each flip chart listed the three questions for voting or rating (that is, how much of an ideal it is? How much of it is present now? And how soon would you like this to happen?). Each flip chart was pasted on to a wall. The facilitators managed to do a quick review of what was posted on the walls to make sure all knowledge enablers were represented and that there was at least one FPS for each knowledge infrastructure factor. Next, the knowledge ambassadors handed each member at their table a set of blue, green, and red round, bright colored stickers. Each color represented a question in the prioritizing flip chart. Blue represented the ideal, green the current or present, and red denoted how soon the FPS were to be realized. Participants were instructed to express their preferences for each


109

FPS by sticking the colored dots next to their preferences. For example, for FPS ‘X’, employee ‘A’ might stick a blue dot over the ‘5’ rating (most ideal) whereas employee ‘B’ might stick a blue dot over the ‘3’ rating. Similarly, employee ‘A’ might place a green dot over the ‘1’ rating (not present) while employee ‘B’ may give a ‘2’ for the same FPS. By doing this, each bank employee was in effect ‘voting’ for the FPS they could most fully support. Once the ‘sticking’ was done, the number of dots on each statement was tabulated. For each FPS, the difference between the ideal and actual was derived. The consultant and the group then looked for the FPS with the maximum discrepancy between the ideal and the present and needing immediate implementation. For example, let us assume 100 people participated in the ‘voting’ process and that FPS #7 received 65 ratings of 5 for ‘ideal’ and the following for the ‘current’ or ‘present’: 50 for 1, 15 for 2, and 8 for 5. It is clear in this case that a large number of people felt FPS #7 was highly desirable but not present currently, as evidenced by the large number of low 1 ratings it received. When such calculations are performed for each FPS, they can be transferred to a Microsoft Excel table and all sorts of calculations performed depending on the quantitative inclinations or interests of the group. What is really important is determining where the energy of the organization is, as evidenced by FPSs receiving a proportionally high number of ‘ideal’ 5 ratings and ‘current’ 1 ratings and a sizable ‘immediate’ for the third question of implementation. At the end, all the FPS were prioritized through a set of criteria that were important to the organizational learning department and to the bank. The criterion was primarily around the time line. FPS with a large difference between the ideal and the current and high immediate implementation ratings were put into the category for immediate follow-up and actions. The FPS that received short term rating for the third item was put in a new category for closer examination with a larger audience. Finally, the long term FPS were perceived as strategically important and were designated for further follow-up with all stakeholders, including customers and other players in the environment. Step 8: Creating and Mandating an Implementation Team GCB recognized that this step of forming an implementation team would become the crossroads at which the project would become a success or no change would take place. So participants and the consultant took great care to verify that the propositions on the high priority list were those for which a true desire for implementation existed. Fortunately, the organizational learning department staff were not content with creating possibility

110


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


propositions as an end. Being equally concerned about the bottom line, they generated action items from the possibility propositions that were specific to each business unit. Further, they set several knowledge sharing initiatives and goals for the year in areas such as employee development, distance learning, leadership development, and project management. Participants volunteered to become the advocates or sponsors for action items and to take responsibility for the realization of the desired outcomes. They became sponsors if they had the power and responsibility for initiation and implementation of a given FPS. They became advocates when they did not have the formal power to make decisions but had the informal power to influence using their social capital and goodwill. Later on it became evident that the knowledge ambassadors felt significant investment in the process and as a result felt a sense of responsibility not to lose the momentum generated and to make things happen in a timely manner. As a result, they divided up the FPS among themselves based on the advocacy/sponsorship dimension and their personal interest in them, took the lead in setting up meetings with senior managers, and sought their input, support, or permission for initiating or executing FPS as the case may be. GCB’s ASK event ‘ended’ on a high note. Overall, the focus to reframe organizational reality in affirmative terms was so strong that one of the groups in the organizational learning department decided collectively that when they heard one another speak negatively about a situation they would challenge that person by asking them ‘If the situation you are talking about was just the way it should be, what would that look like? Now, how can we make that happen?’


111

Participants lingered after the session was over, talking about their action items and the work they had agreed to champion. More than a few participants commented, ‘This project was different. It was the best bank program I’ve ever attended.’ Participants could now see the possibilities at GCB. They were enthusiastic and energized with a desire to continue working in the organizational learning department, and they felt they had a stake in the organization. With their action items in hand, they went to work! Lessons learned As with any project or program, through experiences and intelligent questions from the diverse participants everyone learned fascinating and valuable lessons. Highlighted below are the unexpected challenges and the way the management, staff, and the consultant resolved them and the lessons learned. Future-present scenarios as road maps The various future-present scenario statements turned out to be a significant motivator for GCB to embrace knowledge sharing. They were like a road map because they provided direction to move forward to a specific location. They were also based on the tacit knowledge of the organizational members. Further, because of the participatory process used, the FPS brought out issues that needed to be addressed. The power of reframing The power of reframing in creating new knowledge sharing practices became very evident as a result of this project. The ASK process did not want to focus on deficits but at the same time did not deny the experiences of people as they were expressed. Instead of asking why the staff did not share knowledge, the question was ‘What were the times you felt you shared knowledge with someone in your organization . . .?’ The process of reframing continued throughout the ASK process. Eventually, some members were able to develop a natural habit of reframing in order to facilitate knowledge sharing. Appreciation as a facilitator for innovation When stakeholders are appreciated and respected for what they bring to the organizational arena and when their participation is genuinely sought and secured, innovative and powerful future-present scenarios can be generated. As many researchers have shown recently, appreciation helps people deal with the ‘resistance to change’ issue present in most change efforts.

112


Since there is no blaming of others or fixing of responsibilities for the ‘wrongs done,’ participants are more willing to give ASK a chance to work. The importance of getting to the core By the end of the one-day workshop before the ASK event, it had become evident that the knowledge ambassador facilitators had difficulty getting to the core of the stories. Finding out the true knowledge enablers was crucial to the success of ASK, hence they needed a way to go further than the surface reasons. Eliciting deep conversation takes both time and skill. With only a limited amount of time available during the interviews, the knowledge ambassadors had to make the best use of their time and elicit meaningful responses from the interviewees. To help the knowledge ambassadors conduct good interviews and elicit deep conversation in a group setting, they were trained in small-group facilitation methods. This included techniques for asking questions without intimidating; getting into greater depth of conversation successively, one step at a time, without rushing, despite the lack of time; being mindful to affirm interviewees or group members for what they shared; not judging the quality of responses unnecessarily; and ending the process by making sure that the interviewees or group members shared what they wanted to share and nothing was held back. Following this strategy helped in getting to the core of the knowledge sharing goal. An important role of the knowledge ambassadors The ASK process assigns a key role for the knowledge ambassadors. They, instead of the consultant, drive the process after the intervention. After all, they are GCB employees who have a much better sense of the organization than the consultant and will naturally have a significant stake in the success and long term survival of their organization. And finally, they may have flexibility and possess the subject knowledge of their specific operational areas, thereby enabling them to coach fellow employees or colleagues for follow-up work on the FPS. Later at the ASK event, the consultant and the knowledge ambassadors found that they needed to keep participants grounded in reality and specific action mode, rather than the abstract and the general. Part of the success of the ASK initiative depended upon the ability of the participants to visualize their future-present scenarios. The more real the future-present scenarios seemed, the more the participants felt they had a stake in realizing them, in much the same way that someone works toward realizing a dream she wants ‘so badly she can taste it’. As many of the future-present scenarios tended to become abstract, the knowledge ambassadors continuously


113

reminded the participants of the need to be concrete and to think in terms of the sensory. To aid the process, they were trained to ask variations of two key facilitative questions: ‘When you mentally put yourself in that situation, what does it look like? What do you hear?’ or, ‘If the situation were to change in a way you would like, what would that look like?’ Grounding future-present scenarios As mentioned in the previous chapter, it is important to help the participants visualize a concrete reality based on a full realization of the futurepresent scenarios. If a given FPS came true, would the stakeholders really want to engage in that mode? For example, if the FPS that there be regular weekly Friday late-afternoon meetings came true, would the members really like that after a while? Perhaps some will not want to give up their Friday afternoon. What was important was the need to have a forum to communicate openly with a certain regularity. Hence, Mondays would have been just as good as Fridays. In other words, special attention should be paid to each element of the FPS. In this example, they are the need to have face-to-face meetings, the day of the meeting (Monday or Friday), the time of the meeting (low energy time versus high energy time), the composition of participants (Who will attend? Will the boss be there?), the focus of meetings (content of discussion), and the periodicity (How often? Daily, weekly, or monthly?). An important lesson to keep in mind is that an FPS may sound exciting, appealing, or radical, yet it may not be based on an accurate identification of knowledge enablers or a realistic assessment of their interaction with knowledge infrastructure factors. In other words, one must distinguish between social desirability and social feasibility. The former is a strong motivator and may subtly encourage participants to pick action items that look good or may win the approval of top management. The latter, social feasibility, is more realistic and often less attractive and hence may not gather much momentum in large settings such as those described in the GCB example. It is important to steer participants to FPS that are higher on social feasibility than social desirability, partly by making use of the ‘constructing the FPS’ checklist and the commitment, inspiration, and groundedness model described in the previous chapter. An equally sound indicator for the genuineness or authenticity of an FPS is the subjective intuition that the participants, the knowledge ambassadors, or the key client contacts may have about it. This is an area where consultants typically have limited knowledge because they have not been part of the organizational system long enough. However, consultants may make up for this by intentionally encouraging or coaching the knowledge ambassadors and participants to

114


trust their intuition and by periodically reaffirming that doing so may not necessarily negate the more rigorous process undertaken earlier to write the FPS. Closing of the event, but not the process The ASK initiative does not have a well defined ending by design because knowledge sharing never ends. The ASK initiative is more like the beginning of a new process, though the event has ended. It is important to keep this lesson in mind because it is common practice for management or participants to believe that they have become a knowledge sharing entity because the project has been completed. It is equally important to institute or gain commitment for follow-up work for implementing the futurepresent scenarios. The GCB employees felt differently about ASK in comparison to other activities they had done in the past. Some talked about an event of the previous year where everyone came together, but reported that they did not have the same power or enthusiasm that they had for the ASK process. They felt that the ASK process allowed them to use ‘real’ data from ‘real life’ work experiences with plenty of specificity. Secondly, they liked the fact that there were no blaming or fixing responsibilities for what went wrong because the ASK process was focused on what went right. Several of the attendees highlighted the different climate of this session. The ‘free floating’ climate of affirmation of one another is something unique to ASK and was especially unique to their experience. Finally, they reported that they had learned and felt that everyone had something to contribute to the knowledge sharing process. No matter whether they were a vice-president or data processing staff, they were listened to.

CREATING KNOWLEDGE SHARING CULTURES IN PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS Creating this sustainable knowledge sharing culture in your organization is easy, as long as you take the right framework and dedicate time and commitment to the knowledge sharing culture. Both ITC and GCB had the desire to create an environment where their employees and companies could thrive. Both were able to create sustained results by using the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge process. In the next chapter, we shall explore two government organizations that experienced similar results.


115

NOTES 1. The term ‘possibility proposition’ was used instead of ‘future-present scenarios’ in some case studies. The two terms are used interchangeably in this book. 2 This case study is borrowed from Thatchenkery’s previous work, Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge: Leveraging Knowledge Management for Strategic Change, Chagrin Falls, Ohio: Taos Publishing, 2005. Reproduced with the permission of the publisher.

6.

Government sector case studies

The Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge approach is equally as applicable in the government sector as it is in the private. In this chapter we include two case studies – the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the Another Federal Agency (AFA), a fictitious name to protect its identity. In MARAD, the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge approach was much needed, since one third of the employees were eligible for retirement. Using the ASK approach helped MARAD access and preserve the tacit knowledge that would otherwise have been lost. In the AFA study, we will see an example of how a process group within the organization found value in the appreciative method.

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION MARAD was a good candidate for an Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge analysis because the organization was about to enter into a significant knowledge management challenge with the potential of losing a major segment of the collective tacit knowledge of its employees. At the time of the study, over 35 percent of the employee population was eligible to retire and thus the potential loss of knowledge was significant. The leadership of the organization recognized the importance of retaining the tacit knowledge of employees and welcomed the opportunity to participate in an ASK initiative. The study was conducted by Dan Eisen, Ursula Koerner, Julia Lissely, Anita Murphy, and Ray Pagliarini, who were all George Mason University (GMU) students in the Organizational Learning graduate program at that time. The GMU team engaged in this ASK initiative with the active support of the management of MARAD. MARAD was interested in knowledge management not only for capturing the tacit knowledge as people retired, but also for creating a proactive way to manage information and knowledge for the future. As an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, MARAD promotes the development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced United States merchant marine sufficient to carry the nation’s domestic waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne foreign commerce, and 116


117

the capability of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. MARAD understands that the quality of its leaders and managers is critical to its success as an organization. MARAD has a multifaceted role in transportation. Its core mission is to ensure the continuance of a healthy and viable maritime industry in the United States. This has significant benefits for the US economy and is also essential for its national security. A significant element of MARAD’s mission is the ability to work in and around the maritime and transportation system; advocating, encouraging, supporting, and at times assisting elements of the industry. MARAD’s key programs are externally focused on adding value to maritime and transportation stakeholders and creating a seamless transportation system for the movement of goods. This requires that a large proportion of MARAD employees have significant expertise and credibility in the maritime industry. It is very difficult to gain this expertise and credibility solely through course work or on-the-job training. It often requires time spent working in the maritime industry. Therefore, in MARAD’s human capital planning efforts (including its recruiting plans) a key strategy is to have personnel entering MARAD from the maritime and transportation industries at many levels, bringing fresh expertise to the organization. At the same time, MARAD anticipates that it will have attrition at many levels (much of it leaving to gain experience in the transportation industry). Therefore, MARAD sees a healthy in and out flow of personnel in its workforce as essential to adding value to the transportation system. It sees the process more as a brain circulation than a brain drain. MARAD, which turned 56 years old in 2006, comprises a headquarters office, five regional offices, three National Defense Reserve Fleets, and the United States Merchant Marine Academy, all geographically dispersed. At one point in history, MARAD comprised over 2000 employees with offices established in strategic countries around the world. At the time of writing MARAD has less than 900 employees nationwide. As a federal agency MARAD is no stranger to declining scope and responsibilities as well as a declining workforce. These declining experiences are in part the foundation of MARAD’s present culture. In fact, over a significant period of time, the leadership team and employees have survived the reduction of MARAD without having a structured knowledge management program. Therefore, it was refreshing to notice that the executive leadership team had recognized the critical impact of instituting a knowledge management program.

118


THE STEP BY STEP PROCESS Step 1: Negotiating Top Management Commitment and Support The leadership at MARAD was open to completing an ASK initiative. After presenting them with a proposal, the George Mason University team engaged in a discussion of knowledge sharing, attrition, and relationship management. The leadership expressed their commitment to the success of the project and gave the team full support in accessing the relevant information they needed. Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


Step 2: Presenting the Appreciative Knowledge Sharing Model A representative sample of the MARAD staff attended the storytelling sessions. Seventeen employees represented various positions in the organization from administrative staff to managers. The participants were seated four to a table to allow easy conversation. The GMU team gave a short presentation to the participants as an overview of the ASK initiative, the agenda for the session, the process for sharing stories, and next steps. The GMU team members ‘role played’ a storytelling scenario and asked the participants what were some of the themes or core values they heard in the story. After allowing for questions, the participants formed pairs and began sharing stories. Each member of the team was available to answer questions and to ensure that the participants were engaged in the activity. When the storytelling concluded, the participants were asked to share their stories. The participants identified themes from the stories and wrote


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


119

them on sticky notes. The Mariner team members collected the sticky notes and posted them on flip charts throughout the room. Each facilitator helped a group post their themes. Step 3: Identify Knowledge Enablers The GMU team facilitated the identification of the knowledge enablers by asking the group to look at each KE. The themes were combined, clarified, and categorized by consensus of the group. The original list contained 85 different themes and the categorizing process helped to narrow down the Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


120


themes and eliminate duplicates. The GMU team helped the group to identify overarching themes to shorten the list to a workable number. The knowledge enablers identified for this group were: ● ● ● ●

Trust. Respect. Partnering. Compassion.

Knowledge Enabler 1: Trust How does MARAD encourage employees to share what they know? The GMU team reviewed their knowledge enablers, such as the power of the relationship between knowledge seeker, knowledge source, and the type of knowledge being exchanged. Their interview with the employees and the possibility proposition rankings identified how trust affected knowledge sharing and how individuals assessed the trustworthiness of others when seeking knowledge. The ASK interviews suggested that the ‘magic ingredient’ that linked strong ties among and between employees and management and encouraged knowledge sharing was the knowledge enabler of trust. The study pointed to various types of trust that were instrumental in the knowledge sharing process. It was evident from the interviews that employees built their trust based on three factors: employee longevity in the organization, long term relationships, and a family-centric culture. The longevity of employment of the interviewees ranged from 6 months to 35 years. When asked why people stayed at MARAD many responded by pointing to the family-like organizational climate. The knowledge enabler of trust created the basis for knowledge sharing in this organization. They were emphatic in pointing out that knowledge sharing could not happen in MARAD without trust. It was found that the positive relationships among employees resulted in a high level of group cohesion. The knowledge enabler trust carried great weight in the possibility proposition statements that were created later in the ASK initiative. Leadership and trust were ranked second by the MARAD employees as an immediate necessity for the organization. Employees felt that the leaders of MARAD should establish clear performance standards, assign specific tasks, and provide employees with increasing responsibilities. Knowledge Enabler 2: Respect What might be the role of respect in knowledge sharing? Data from interviews, focus groups, and possibility proposition statements from MARAD discerned how respect affected knowledge sharing and how individuals


121

assessed the respect of others when seeking knowledge. The data showed that respect had a major impact on knowledge transfers involving highly tacit knowledge. The possibility proposition results by time-bound categories reflected the importance that MARAD had placed on the knowledge enabler, respect. Respect triggered the process of tacit knowledge sharing in MARAD. Employees observed how information was given, received, and used to benefit both the receiver and giver. What are the factors that a knowledge seeker uses to define respect? In this culture with staff longevity, the presence of an ongoing credible relationship among individuals had an impact on respect and knowledge sharing. It was MARAD’s belief that this level of respect initiated a systematic reaction to knowledge sharing. Through the prioritized proposition statements, the ‘immediate future’ part of them showed that MARAD employees saw decision making and respect as a necessity. They reflected that valuing differences throughout the organization would contribute to accomplishing MARAD’s mission. In the short term perspective of a six month time frame, organizational practices and respect were seen as number four in the rankings. The employees stated that teambuilding within an organization came from the job being well accomplished. For the two year time frame, MARAD management decided to meet with employees one-on-one as frequently as needed but at least once a quarter to discuss overall achievements and areas of concern. This was shown through the proposition statement of leadership and respect seen as number four in the rankings. In MARAD, there was a shared understanding of the sustained tacit knowledge sharing they had created and respect that they created a code of behavior through which the exchange of tacit knowledge could happen on a daily basis. Clearly, in MARAD respect was a knowledge enabler that people owned and shared. Knowledge Enabler 3: Partnering The importance of partnering at MARAD was significant in both explicit and tacit knowledge exchanges. The possibility proposition statements revealed that the employees who got the most useful knowledge did so through trusted partnerships. Organizational components with strong partnerships often had similar kinds of knowledge; they were aware of the same people, ideas, and concepts. However, different partnerships had connections to different social network types of knowledge and ideas. The key to effective knowledge sharing at MARAD was based on both strong and different partnerships linked by partnership bond. Knowledge sharing was partly accomplished through short and long term teams/groups across multilevel organizational components. It was

122


common for employees to work together on projects and assignments across departments. Partnering was very useful in achieving the goal of improving the final product. This knowledge sharing at various organizational levels developed ongoing partnerships between groups where important knowledge was shared. Frequent partnering helped to accomplish a social construction of knowledge. MARAD through partnering was functioning as an open system. During the interviews, employees related that building networks for sharing information was often based on employee longevity. Partnering also helped the interviewees learn the dynamics of the different types of people they work with, along with an understanding of each others’ strengths and weaknesses. In MARAD employees built life-long partnership throughout the organization. MARAD’s organizational components partnered together to preserve the integrity of the mission of MARAD. MARAD has become the partner of choice in the maritime community by partnering with various other agencies. Its senior leadership took pride in identifying the talents and strengths of its employees to build effective teams and worked together to achieve agency goals and objectives. Partnering was also essential to complete and implement the responsibilities of the agency. The GMU team found that MARAD’s commitment to success was marked by their outstanding support of their stakeholders. To do this, they maintained a best practices database that was available to all employees. Partnering was a very large part of the prioritized proposition statement for the sixth month time frame and was shown in five of the seven statements. This was seen in the example of decision making and partnering. Employees felt that MARAD’s partnership with the industry, international organizations, and other agencies had made it the partner of choice in the maritime community. Over the next two years communication and partnering were still seen as a priority. The employees hoped that the database would help all employees by benefiting from the experiences and knowledge of other MARAD employees. The data analysis clearly suggested that partnering in MARAD fostered knowledge sharing through various internal and external partnerships. The longevity of MARAD employees had built a wealth of institutional knowledge that could be exchanged through partnering and sharing tacit knowledge both internally and externally. Knowledge Enabler 4: Compassion The knowledge enabler of compassion stems from the feeling of family throughout MARAD’s employees. MARAD’s family-centric culture created


123

an enabling context that encouraged cooperation, sharing, loyalty, and compassion among employees. It was natural to wonder how this knowledge enabler called compassion could facilitate the knowledge sharing at MARAD. MARAD employees believed that compassion was the behavioral dimension behind knowledge sharing, allowing people to reach out to one another. For example, an interviewee said: Compassion is shown when an individual is stuck on a task and other employees share their knowledge to help complete the project. There is an importance of treating people as people and not just a source of information. When there is misunderstanding employees engage in conversations to resolve the difficulties. The family-centric culture here enables employees to communicate effectively during difficult conversations.

In MARAD, compassion was an indispensable part of developing open and productive working environments. As one interviewee succinctly stated, ‘the atmosphere here undoubtedly creates a climate of compassion’. It was thus not surprising that compassion was ranked very highly in relation to organizational practices, ranking as a priority. The data also revealed that compassion was very important for leadership, who were very mindful of the need to create an organizational climate that allowed employees to feel that they belonged to the organization and that the powers that be would take care of them in times of crisis or unusual circumstances. Organizational practices and compassion were prioritized at the top of the list of the possibility proposition statements. The employees wanted to see the Maritime Administration provide employee friendly programs to show that MARAD cared about its employees and that they were an important part of the organization. Over the next two years employees wanted MARAD to establish an environment that encouraged knowledge sharing based on trust and respect for new and innovative ideas. The employees ranked this second among the possibility proposition statements and wanted to make sure that the environment would promote teaming and help individuals to make a contribution to the team efforts or assignments. Some examples of compassion were statements such as ‘MARAD provides employee friendly programs’, ‘our leaders model empathy and sympathy’, ‘We practice team work through knowing our employees, sharing concerns and accepting differences’, and ‘MARAD builds camaraderie between team members by creating formal teams with a flexible structure’. Steps 4 and 5: Analyze the Expanded Data from Appreciative Interviews using Knowledge Infrastructure Factors Twenty-five MARAD employees were individually interviewed by GMU team members. They asked the participants questions to validate the four

124


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


knowledge enablers and to give them an opportunity to share their stories and ideas. The 25 employees interviewed were not a part of the storytelling session. It was the GMU team’s intent to try to reach as many employees as possible. After the interviews were completed, the GMU team collected the data and compiled them into various analytical formats. They engaged those who helped in the process and arranged for a working session with MARAD employees to jointly analyze the data. The final group consisted of those who participated in the storytelling exercise and those who were interviewed. Step 6: Constructing Future-present Scenarios/Possibility Propositions The GMU team defined the knowledge enablers and showcased stories featuring each KE. They explained the process for the session, and instructed the group on writing possibility proposition statements. The group began by considering each core value in relation to the KIFs. Divided into smaller groups, each group was assigned one organizational factor for each core value to work through the KIFs and create a possibility proposition. Each group wrote their proposition statements on a sticky note in order to facilitate the process of grouping the data. Once the possibility propositions had been written, each small group passed their draft statements to another table for their feedback. When the groups completed giving feedback regarding the possibility propositions, the groups were allowed time to make changes to their statements. The GMU team then asked a representative from each table to read each of their proposition statements to the rest of the group. They were also


Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


125

given time for questions and further explanation of the statements. No questions emerged and the group validated each of the statements as they were read. Step 7: Consensually Validate and Rank Possibility Propositions The possibility proposition statements were posted on charts throughout the room. The participants walked around the room and validated each proposition statement. Each chart also contained a ranking system. On a scale of 1 to 5, the participants were asked to rank each statement on Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


126


whether it was ideal, how much was already in place, and how soon did they want this to happen. The participants were given dots to indicate their choice and ranking. When the session concluded, the GMU team collected the data and ranking. Step 8: Form an Implementation Team The GMU team used the collected data to create suggestions and recommendations for MARAD. After the session, the team returned to leadership with a summary of the project and recommendations for implementation (Table 6.l). The recommendations were received favorably and were in the process of being implemented at the time of writing. Step

Action

Step 1


Step 2


Step 3


Step 4


Step 5


Step 6


Step 7


Step 8


Implications The knowledge enablers at MARAD represented the most significant strengths and opportunities to help create an efficient knowledge management system at MARAD. The employees as well as the senior management understood that there was a real and immediate need for change. There was a strong desire among many of the newer employees (i.e., employees with 0–5 years of MARAD experience) to contribute to the discussions surrounding major change initiatives and reforms contemplated by MARAD’s leadership. It was recognized that these officers, after all, would be the ones who would have to live with the implications of the initiatives and reforms the longest. Their desire to be part of the solution can be seen in the fact that


Table 6.1

127

Possibility propositions

(a) Implementation time frame: immediate Organizational Practices – Compassion

The Maritime Administration provides employee friendly programs that say we care about you as an important part of our organization. These human resource programs consist of telecommuting, drug and alcohol counseling, job sharing, leave donation, and family leave programs and medical/mental health support.

Leadership – Trust

In our organization, leaders establish trust through demonstrated concern for and interest in employees’ professional development. Leaders establish clear performance standards and assign specific tasks, providing employees with increasing responsibility as they demonstrate success and ability with basic tasks. In addition to midyear and annual performance evaluations, leaders provide task specific feedback, providing advice when sought and rewarding success through praise, recognition, and increased responsibility. Employees feel valued, appreciated, and believe their supervisors have their best interest at heart.

Leadership – Compassion

Leaders are accepting of people as unique and worthy of respect and demonstrate these qualities through open communication, coaching, motivating, empathy, and sympathy to ensure employee empowerment and success.

Decision Making – Respect

The organization respects the qualifications and competence of its diverse staff. Valuing these differences contributes to accomplishing MARAD’s mission.

Leadership – Partnering

Leaders of MARAD work together to achieve agency goals and objectives. Organizations partner together in order to protect the integrity and mission of the agency. Leaders form workgroups to develop innovative solutions to improve work processes, increase customer satisfaction, and develop ways to increase employee development and improve organizational communication. Information is compiled from each organization to include organizational highlights. This information is disseminated to all employees through quarterly broadcast messages as well as quarterly newsletters. Workgroups meet quarterly to review overall effectiveness.

Leadership – Respect

Leaders earn respect by consistently treating people fairly. This does not mean that all employees are treated the same. Leaders meet with employees one-on-one as frequently as needed but at least once a quarter to discuss overall achievements and areas of concern. Both leaders and employees share concerns openly. Titles are left at the door. Cultural differences are honored.

128

Table 6.1


(continued)

(b) Implementation time frame: six months Decision Making – Partnering

MARAD’s partnership with industry, international organizations, and other agencies has made us the partner of choice in the maritime community. MARAD’s commitment to success is marked by our outstanding support of our stakeholders through the newly formed National Maritime Counsel.

Organizational Practices – Partnering

MARAD supervisory and leadership personnel identify the talents and strengths of employees to establish ways of developing high performance teams. MARAD employees network and share information with one another by partnering on work projects and assignments. We will be aware of one another’s strengths and weaknesses and work toward establishing high performing teams.

Communication – Partnering

MARAD maintains a ‘best practices’ database that is available to all employees. This database helps all employees, who benefit from the experiences and knowledge of other MARAD employees.

Organizational Practices – Respect

Teambuilding within an organization comes from the job being well done. Respect is earned among the members by the entire team working together. Organizational respect allows for the efficient and timely responses to finished work that challenges the team and individuals on the team.

Incentives – Partnering

To complete or implement the responsibilities of the agency, partnering is essential. This is accomplished by setting up various short and longer term teams/groups on various issues at the office, agency, and stakeholder levels. Criteria have been established to facilitate partnering at each level with the goal of improving the final product or decision. This teaming on various issues develops partnerships between individuals and groups where significant knowledge is shared. Only through frequent and sincere partnering experiences can we accomplish a social construction of knowledge.

Incentives – Trust

Trust is the basis for knowledge sharing in our organization. We give credit to individuals and especially to the group through broad recognition to validate their contribution. Credit is based on the contribution to reaching agency goals and objectives. The recognition of outputs for individuals and groups creates trust among individuals and between groups and leads to higher efforts and better results.

Communication – Respect

MARAD has a transparent hiring process. All MARAD vacancy announcements require a ‘free flow’ answer to a knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) for demonstrating their ability to communicate with other staff and respect the opinions of others.


Table 6.1

129

(continued)

(c) Implementation time frame: two years Communication – Trust

MARAD fosters a shared responsibility for failure and finding subsequent solutions by formalizing accountability for the manager and staff.

Incentives – Compassion

We have established an environment that encourages knowledge sharing based on trust and respect for new and innovative ideas. The environment promotes teaming and helps individuals to make a contribution to the team efforts or assignments. This includes being genuine and sincere to each team member with empathy, sympathy, and empowerment.

Decision Making – Trust

MARAD employees and customers trust decisions made by management, which are now listed on the MARAD intranet in a timely manner. Management decisions consider the views and ideas of all employees. In turn, management takes ownership of decisions while empowering employees to execute. If the outcomes turned out to be ineffective, management quickly corrects course.

Leadership – Respect

Leaders earn respect by consistently treating people fairly. This does not mean that all employees are treated the same. Leaders meet with employees one-on-one as frequently as needed but at least once a quarter to discuss overall achievements and areas of concern. Both leaders and employees share concerns openly. Titles are left at the door. Cultural differences are honored.

Incentives – Respect

People are respected for speaking up and sharing. Multilevel teaming has been established to promote the respect of diverse ideas and concepts given the issue, activity, or decision. We show consideration and appreciation for all shared information and acknowledge that the final product is a joint effort. The opportunities to achieve success are much greater if information is flowing freely.

Communication – Partnering

MARAD maintains a ‘best practices’ database that is available to all employees. This database helps all employees benefit from the experiences and knowledge of other MARAD employees.

several of the leadership team supported each ASK initiative to engage employees at all levels in an Appreciative Inquiry about what was working well at MARAD. Other key factors of their interest in helping can be found in the possibility proposition statements. The propositions provided a road map for the creation of tacit knowledge which was critical for the organization.

130


Recommendations The GMU team’s recommendations focused on three levels of the organization: the individual, the group, and the organization as a whole. Individual level To sustain the knowledge enablers currently existing in MARAD, interviewees stressed the importance of a larger Upward Mobility Program to strengthen and develop the emerging workforce and capture the tacit knowledge of the retiring workforce. While there was some concern over the transition of MARAD, most interviewees accepted change as a natural part of a transition to a changing workforce. The Transportation Leadership Program (TLP) was the major upward mobility avenue available to MARAD employees. Employees saw it as a core leadership development program but it tapped a small portion of leadership at MARAD. There were a few cases of ongoing leader development with supervisors that had informally developed in the upper levels of the organization. The GMU team recommended a combination of Upward Mobility Programs within the existing structure of MARAD. Examples included shadowing programs, six month residence internships, personal interviews with senior leaderships, leader network cadres, leaders’ knowledge sharing database, intermodal teams with different influence from public and private sectors, and opportunities to partner outside the organization and across departmental divisions. Group level With the potential to lose a major segment of the collective tacit knowledge as a result of retirement, interviewees voiced their thoughts, concerns, and ideas particularly regarding internal transformation for MARAD. Interviewees identified several internal transformation projects to support senior leadership, such as commissioning an advisory group of MARAD employees to think ‘boldly and creatively’ about the organization’s future and to help senior leadership, design a program to enable MARAD to meet the challenges ahead. They also put together a strong briefing program for internal and external stakeholders. Organizational level For its transformation to be successful MARAD needed buy-in at all levels, including bottom-up input and top-down ownership. The workforce and mid-level managers needed to understand why MARAD needed to change some of its day-to-day business practices through the knowledge enablers of trust, compassion, respect, and partnering. The recommendation in this


131

context was that they focus on issues that continue to instill the knowledge enablers. MARAD must consider stronger networks, better partnerships, and increasing focus on sharing knowledge inside and outside MARAD, removing the barriers to progress and efficiency, and open the flow of ideas, people, and information between the components. To assist in these recommendations, MARAD may consider appointing a cross-department facilitator to help with both coordinating efforts and monitoring progress, and perhaps even a formal review panel including both insiders and outsiders for launching this recommendation. The following implementation guidelines were provided based on the prioritization of the possibility propositions across an immediate, six month, and two year time frame. For the immediate time frame, it was recommended that MARAD expand its Upward Mobility Programs, organize partnerships to improve work processes, increase customer satisfaction, increase employee development, and improve organizational communication. For the six month time frame, the recommendations included establishing criteria to facilitate partnering networks, establish internal transformation advisory groups made up of a cross section of MARAD employees, and create community of practice groups to discuss issues of importance for the organization. For the two year time frame, the prioritized recommendations included establishing a knowledge management intranet database to increase knowledge sharing, and initiating multilevel partnering with local government and other maritime associates. As a result of these recommendations based on ASK, members pledged that they would strive to create an environment that encourages knowledge sharing based on the knowledge enablers of trust, respect, compassion, and partnering for new and innovative ideas. Enabling the creation of tacit knowledge sharing at MARAD was about creating the space to foster tacit knowledge. The four key knowledge enablers at MARAD – trust, respect, partnering, and compassion – were the ingredients to instill a knowledge vision, manage conversations, mobilize knowledge activists, and create the right context for knowledge sharing. The ASK initiative has its own proposals to overcome the resistance to change that would be a natural outcome of any change project. While it would be very difficult to manage ‘resistance to change’ due to the fact that resistance is a way of expressing feelings of vulnerability, the AI/ASK model helped MARAD staff express their concerns through conversations around what was important and meaningful for organizational change. Using the ASK method in MARAD, we were able to specifically focus on what people were doing well. The phrase ‘overcoming resistance’ imposes an adversarial relationship while resistance to change is more naturally occurring and an internal emotional process where the key to deal with it is to understand it.

132


Conclusion MARAD served as an excellent client in which to implement an ASK initiative. Its 35 percent retirement eligibility rate and the lack of a structured knowledge management program may have been the initial factors that attracted the organization to engage an ASK process. But once started, the unconditional support of the leadership and the extraordinary commitment of its staff allowed the ASK initiative to grow into a major change possibility for the organization. The leadership was not only concerned about the loss of tacit knowledge within the agency as large numbers of key employees retire but also about the potential loss of relationships with the maritime industry. In that context, engaging with the ASK initiative was a smart decision. Working with the client, the GMU team was able to discover four knowledge enablers: trust, respect, partnering, and compassion. MARAD’s longevity among employees allowed long term relationships to evolve and thus build trust. MARAD’s family-centric environment enhanced knowledge sharing, which was earned through respect. Partnering was critical to achieving the agency’s mission and goals. Finally, MARAD’s open and productive work environment was based on this notion of compassion and its important role in the agency. As mentioned earlier, the GMU team’s recommendations to MARAD encompassed four types: individual, group, organizational, and time bound. Individual recommendations included such items as a knowledge sharing database and creating opportunities to partner outside MARAD. Group recommendations centered around creating employee advisory groups to encourage employees to think boldly and creatively about MARAD’s future. Organizational recommendations focused on issues that continued to instill the knowledge enablers such as developing stronger networks, better partnerships, and increasing focus on sharing knowledge internally and externally. The time-bound recommendations, created by the employees participating in the focus groups, were subdivided into three segments by way of implementation time span: immediate, six months, and two years. In the immediate category, recommendations included expanding Upward Mobility Programs to enhance knowledge sharing while the six month time frame called for establishing and facilitating networks. The two year time span recommendations were for establishing a knowledge management intranet database to increase knowledge sharing.


133

THE AFA The AFA is the fictitious name of a US Federal Agency where the ASK initiative was undertaken by another GMU team. The Process Engineering organization within the AFA is responsible for providing policy guidance and direction to the various lines of business and staff offices of the AFA on the best applicable information technology processes, practices, and tools. This organization’s mission is to provide agency policy and direction in the areas of IT Strategic Planning, IT Investment Analysis, Process Engineering, Information Management, and Information Security. This mission was meant to be achieved by working with key constituents to understand the information technology needs of the agency and by teaming with other organizations to carry out the mission. The Process Engineering division of the AFA decided to conduct an ASK initiative in order to enhance process sharing across the agency. This group was an advisory body only, and had no authority to mandate a particular process or a process improvement technique. As a result, each line of business and each staff office had developed and followed its own processes. There was no continuity of thought or constancy of purpose in the processes used by the different lines of business. The sponsor stated that the underlying issue might be a lack of trust, resulting in a lack of communication between this organization and the various lines of business. The objective of using the ASK model was to find and expand the knowledge sharing practices that were already taking place and to help develop an overarching knowledge sharing culture within the AFA. Since the model was designed to bring people together, representatives from the different groups were requested to get involved in the process. By helping the participants to focus on their positive knowledge sharing experiences, the GMU team wanted to create a space that would give them the desire and ability to trust and communicate with each other in a new way. It was hoped that the new experience would lay the groundwork for creating a knowledge sharing culture and help achieve their goal of adopting common processes. It was felt by both the GMU team and the AFA that the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge initiative would promote interaction and communication between management and team members, team members themselves, and between different lines of business within the agency. The Process Engineering Division The mission of the Process Engineering Division was to assist the AFA’s various programs to improve its management and the engineering

134


processes used to plan, procure, test, evaluate, and sustain both mission critical and non-mission critical software intensive systems. The role of the Process Engineering department was to identify, enhance, and promote the adoption throughout the agency of the best applicable information technology processes, practices, and tools. In cooperation with other AFA lines of business, Process Engineering developed plans that maximized the effective use of IT in meeting the agency’s business needs. It focused on activities that cut across various lines of business with special emphasis on those activities that had the most impact on the agency’s ability to meet its business goals. The immediate goal of Process Engineering was to enable the agency to adopt the best applicable technology for improved safety, efficiency, security, and quality. Process Engineering had identified two key activities that cut across all lines of business and directly addressed the four major goals. They were Process Improvement and Safety and Certification. The first was based on the industry standard Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which integrated the CMMs for Software, Systems Engineering, and Software Acquisition. The purpose of the second, the integrated safety and information security initiative, was to explore the technical, programmatic, and economic efficiencies to be achieved by integrating safety and information security within a unified system lifecycle. From the beginning, the AFA project sponsor was very committed about bringing staff together from all parts of the organization who were impacted by the process improvement group. He personally took on the responsibility of providing the GMU team with participants for all of the phases. Making use of the exceptional support, the team was able to collect data using techniques such as storytelling, interviews, and observation. The team discussed a variety of questions and approaches, keeping in mind the knowledge sharing aspect as well as the business of the client, process improvement. The following questions were examples: Think of a time when you had a positive experience sharing information about a business process. 1. 2. 3.

What made it a positive experience? What did you learn from that experience? What motivated you to share the information?

The questions were intended to elicit stories from the participants about positive knowledge sharing experiences such as the occasions when sharing knowledge provided them with a sense of accomplishment and a feeling of providing value to another person and to the organization. The


135

following are some quotes that highlight the salient features of the stories shared: As a telecommuter, I use technology to actively participate in online discussion groups (chat rooms, discussion boards) in order to get ideas for current work in progress. The way we are organized helps us to see the bigger picture, understand how we compare with other industries, and how we can do business better. I came to work and told my colleagues about a safety exercise on terrorism that I witnessed in my neighborhood. I shared it with my colleagues because I see my work community as an extension of my home community. At the AFA ‘knowledge is power’ does not hold true. I share knowledge because I don’t feel threatened by doing so.

As the stories were shared, the GMU team captured key themes on flip charts, taking care to verify the words and statements with the person whose experience was being shared. The audience received the stories with appreciation and respect. After all stories were shared, the process of identifying and clarifying the knowledge enablers began. There was a high level of interest, discussion, and dialogue among the participants throughout the process and they eventually came up with the following list of seven knowledge enablers: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Ethical behavior – Doing the right thing. Time empowerment – Ability to control one’s time and make time for knowledge sharing. Relevance – Help, usefulness, significance, understood value of one’s work. What is in it for us? Understanding the broad benefits of one’s work. Sense of community – Caring, sharing, trust and support. Effective communication – Asking and listening. Resources – Time, talent, sponsorship, and engagement of people.

The GMU team subsequently reduced the knowledge enablers to five, eliminating ‘What is in it for us?’ and ‘Effective communication’ since they overlap with two knowledge infrastructure factors, incentives and communication, respectively. To expand and validate the knowledge enablers, the GMU team formulated the interview questions and an interview protocol for the next phase. The purpose of the interviews was to validate the knowledge enablers that were identified in the storytelling session and to

136


collect organizational stories about each of the knowledge enablers. The GMU team asked the following information about each KE (the KE resources is used here as an example): 1. 2. 3.

Several people in your organization have identified (resources) as a knowledge enabler. Can you tell me something more about it? Can you describe a time where you had the necessary (resources) to share information? What are the organizational factors that allowed you to (access these resources)?

Several of the interviewees decided to share stories that were less than positive and were undeterred by attempts to shift to an appreciative mode. This represented only a few people and most interviewees, with a little encouragement from the interviewers, were able to recall and tell positive stories and experiences. The sharing of negative experiences was also appreciated because they existed and came from a motivation to make the teller’s work life better. In the final facilitated session, possibility scenarios or possibility propositions were created. Invitees included members from the initial session and all of those interviewed. The participants were divided into groups and each worked with their own knowledge enabler to create possibility propositions. For the next step, the GMU team used a valencing or prioritizing technique to rank the propositions based on questions from the model that were described earlier in the methodology section of this book. 1. 2. 3.

How important is this for the organization to achieve? How much of this may already be present in the organization? Realistically, how soon do you want this to happen?

After tabulating the scores, the team came up with 2 immediate, 10 short term, and 16 long term propositions. The sponsor took responsibility for assigning owners to the propositions of the immediate and short term time spans. The following are some examples of possibility propositions from the immediate term time category: We communicate what we value in our formulation of goals and objectives. Leaders foster a sense of community through their personal involvement with their group, and by including and valuing everyone as a part of the team with a role to play.


137

For the short term category, examples included statements such as: We strive to identify key stakeholders in decisions, and proactively involve them in the decision making process. We value cross-organizational dialogue that supports cooperation and coordination to achieve documented corporate goals and objectives. We publish results in performance reports and lessons learned.

The interview data suggested that the AFA has a strong meeting culture, one where a great deal of time is spent in and running between meetings. Interviewees shared the sentiment that if there were fewer meetings to attend, there would be more time for people to get their day to day work accomplished. Furthermore, this would provide them with additional time and energy to participate in the knowledge sharing process. It was also found that staff were concerned with how they used other peoples’ time. For instance, a major inhibitor of knowledge sharing was that if people did not know whether or not a certain piece of information was relevant to another person’s work then they would not just share automatically. Individuals were deciding to share or not to share based on insufficient knowledge and understanding of other peoples’ roles and responsibilities within the organization. Staff would share only when they had something that they knew was relevant to another person. The interview data also suggested that the onus was on the leadership to demonstrate the behavior that employees wanted to see in the organization. If the leadership wanted their staff to share knowledge regularly, they too needed to share knowledge regularly. The staff appeared to take cues from leadership and emulate their behavior. As mentioned earlier, some interviewees found it difficult to stay focused on remaining positive and telling stories that positively reflected knowledge sharing within the organization. The interviewers affirmed such feelings and did not challenge them. Instead the questions were reframed to something like this: ‘If your situation were to change in a direction you would like it to, what would that look like? If your experiences were to become positive for you, what would they be?’ During the process of valencing the possibility propositions, the team uncovered interesting correlations in both the immediate and short term possibility propositions. These were related to the knowledge infrastructure factor of leadership. For example, here is a quote: ‘Leaders foster a sense of community through their personal involvement with their group, and by including and valuing everyone as a part of the team with a role to play.’ In essence, using the appreciative method, the team was able to identify the

138


existing organizational factors and individual motivators to knowledge sharing and help the client come up with action plans to implement the desired changes. The following are some such recommendations or action plans: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Identify an action lead and implementation team for each immediate and short term possibility proposition that was generated in the ASK initiative. Use regularly scheduled meetings as a means for updating the status of the developed action plans. This is to prevent adding meeting time to already busy schedules. After 3–6 months, reevaluate the long term propositions to determine which are still organizationally relevant. Evaluate, through a valencing or other prioritization process, which propositions to work on next. Review the newly bolstered long term propositions that now include organizationally relevant action items, ideas, and suggestions that were collected during the interview process. Develop a strategy to gain executive support for implementing a knowledge sharing culture within the AFA. This support would consist of: ● ● ●

● ● ●

Ongoing communications from the top that talk about the importance of the process to the future of the AFA. Actions by senior leaders that demonstrate the desired behaviors (‘walk the walk’). Starting with areas that the process group touches, involve people in the ASK process and move to involve other areas (start small and grow big). Model the behaviors learned during the project (‘walk the walk’). Share what you are doing with the greater organization, through various communication venues. Celebrate success so that people are curious and interested and want to be a part of what you’re doing.

Overall, AFA employees cherished the opportunity to share knowledge and it was up to the leaders to sustain the momentum built through the ASK initiative. The ASK process helped empower the employees to take action for the betterment of themselves, the process organization, and the AFA.

7.

Public service case study

Employees of public service organizations may have more socially sensitive motivations than those from for-profit, private sectors. Whether such differences would lead to different knowledge sharing challenges or not was something we were not aware of when a GMU team began their ASK initiative with one such organization. The international Public Service Organization (PSO) showcased in this case study had its own knowledge sharing challenge because its employees were geographically dispersed and there was a significant amount of turnover every few years. To the GMU team, both of these features appeared to underscore the need for a formal knowledge sharing program. Since not many people stayed at PSO for over five years communication was not free flowing and people were not bumping into each other at the water cooler. As a result, only a limited amount of organizational history had become institutionalized. The PSO therefore welcomed the opportunity to conduct a knowledge sharing initiative. In order to maintain the anonymity of the organization described in this chapter, we are not able to write much about the history or mission of the organization since doing so might reveal its identity. We can however share that this was an internationally known public service organization, about 7500 in strength, with a cherished history and attracting highly committed individuals who were interested in making a positive difference in society. The focus of the ASK initiative was to examine one particular division within the headquarter organization of the PSO whose primary job was to provide support for the field.

DISCOVERING WHAT IS Data collection at the PSO began with a two hour group session. Thirteen Center staff participated in the session, representing all divisions and including administrative assistants, professional staff, and management. The GMU team set the stage by providing an introduction to Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge methodology. They explained the process for surfacing stories of successful knowledge sharing and paired off the participants to interview each other. During the interview process they were asked 139

140

Step


1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be

• •

Outcome

Process

• • •


Key Themes



K1 K2 K3 K4

5.



Prioritize Actions


to share stories about moments at work when they felt most alive and valued for the knowledge they were able to share, or times when colleagues shared valuable knowledge with the interviewee. Twenty minutes were allowed for the interviews, after which all participants shared the stories of their partner with the group. As a story was recounted, the group was asked to identify enabling themes that might have encouraged knowledge sharing in that instance. A total of 30 different themes were uncovered, many of which were repeated in other stories. After all of the stories had been shared, the group consolidated the list into six potential knowledge enablers: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Collaboration/sharing culture. Empowerment. Belief in the PSO mission. Building relationships/community. Responsiveness. Reflection/Reflective.

There was a healthy debate between the two terms ‘collaboration’ and ‘sharing culture’. Some felt the PSO Center was a collaborative culture and

141


so could not separate the two terms. In addition, ‘building relationships’ and ‘community’ were thought to be synonymous by some participants. The GMU team decided to keep both terms for the time being and felt that during Phase II of the interview process they could explore these terms further. More details on these enablers are highlighted later in the chapter.

Step

CREATING WHAT MIGHT BE 1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be


Vote

• •

Outcome

Process

• • •


Key Themes

Action ActionItems Items 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4.

K1 K2 K3 K4

5.



Prioritize Actions


A week after the pilot event, one of the project sponsors at the Center sent a broadcast message to Center staff thanking those who participated in the group session and alerting everyone that the project team might be contacting them for individual 30–45 minute interviews. The purpose of these follow-up interviews was to validate the knowledge enablers uncovered during the group session. All interviews were very informative and the Center staff were enthusiastic about sharing their stories. Center staff seemed very appreciative of their colleagues throughout the organization. During the individual interviews the GMU team collected stories from Center staff that would validate the knowledge enablers uncovered during the group session. They also collected information regarding the influence

142


of seven possible organizational infrastructure factors on the knowledge sharing experiences at the Center. Two of the prospective knowledge enablers were combinations of terms, and the team wanted to verify either the combined terms or the single most appropriate term. As a result of the individual interviews, and subsequent data, four of the six original knowledge enablers were validated along with five of the proposed knowledge infrastructure factors. The team was also able to confirm that two knowledge enablers with multiple terms could be reduced to one term that most resonated with the employees who were interviewed. After analyzing the interview data it was concluded that collaboration, empowerment, belief in the PSO mission, and building relationships were the four most critical knowledge enablers at the PSO Center. All three divisions gave high marks to collaboration and empowerment. The interview data for two of the divisions showed responsiveness with a higher reference level than belief in the PSO mission. However, after analyzing the positive stories further it was concluded that the response noted in the stories was due to belief in the mission. The fourth knowledge enabler, building relationships, was discussed in conjunction with collaboration. Participants collaborated because they had built up relationships with other staff members. In relation to the infrastructure factors, all divisions noted that leadership facilitated the critical knowledge enablers. All divisions connected leadership to the knowledge enablers of collaboration, empowerment, and belief in the mission. While the data from the stories did not contain any specific incentives, the general incentives were primarily satisfaction from a job well done and belief in the mission or assisting everyone in doing a better job. A few weeks later, the project team conducted a second group session with the PSO Center staff to complete the data gathering process (steps 5 and 6 of the ASK model). For this two hour session, every Center employee who had participated in either the initial group session or one of the individual interviews was invited to attend. The purpose of the final session was to present the project team’s findings so far and to engage the group in the creation of future-present scenarios or possibility propositions based on the stories that were shared by the staff. The group generated scenarios during a 30 minute period by working in groups of two or three people, each group focused on one of the knowledge enablers. The group developed 16 scenarios in the time they were allotted. During another approximately 15 minute period, everyone read and commented on the original set of scenarios that were arranged in a gallery along one wall of the conference room that was used. Comments were intended to be appreciative – that is, written to help strengthen the scenario. The small groups then reconvened to refine their scenarios.

143


Step

PRIORITIZING WHAT COULD BE 1, 2, 3

4, 5, 6

7

8

What Is

What Might Be

What Could Be

What Will Be

• •

Outcome

Process

• • •


Key Themes



K1 K2 K3 K4

5.



Prioritize Actions


After the possibility propositions had been created, they were rated against two questions: How much of an ideal is it? 5 4 VERY MUCH

3

How much of it may already be present? 5 4 3 A LOT

2

2

1 NOT MUCH 1 NOT MUCH

Based on these rankings, the top six are shaded in Table 7.1. PSO chose to focus on these particular propositions as part of their action plan. ‘Being in PSO and working towards the mission collaborating with likeminded people is a celebration in itself, it is not just a job for us, it is our passion and adventure. We believe that by working here we contribute our little part in making our mission a reality’, stated a member of staff, echoing a theme in a majority of the interviews. Themes such as collaboration,

144

Table 7.1


Possibility propositions

Strength

Future-Present Scenarios (Possibility Propositions)

Empowerment – Organizational Structure

The Center has a more equal role ‘a seat at the table’ in decision making within the agency.

Collaboration – Communication

Current staff benefit from a tradition of ‘open houses’ held semi-annually at headquarters and virtually on the internet. Former staff are encouraged to attend the open houses.

Collaboration – Organizational Structure

Staff benefit from a tradition of keeping in touch.

Belief in PSO – Technology

Implement live meeting software to enhance knowledge sharing and collaboration with field and headquarters in next quarter, pilots already done in two locations.

Building Relationships – Organizational Structure

The continued use of cross-functional teams (region CIO, etc.) promotes relationship building and knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries for more effective use of resources.

Empowerment – Communication

Building wide work environment that empowers communication across stovepipes, i.e. office working groups, informal socializing, Wednesday a.m. doughnut with the regions.

Empowerment – Technology

Portable office that is accessible anywhere.

Collaboration – Leadership

Staff are encouraged to work together in selfselected and self-driven groups and are valued for their cooperative and productive work by actively engaged leaders.

Belief in PSO Mission – Communication

Provide an effective means of information/ knowledge and policy dissemination at headquarters and to the field. Strengthen development by one weekly email update to managers. Complete manual by Oct. 1st (procedures/guidance). Standardize cataloguing by providing Dewey decimal system classification guide.

Building Relationships – Organizational Practices and Routines

Center staff try to record knowledge and procedures and pass them on through technologically appropriate standard operating procedures.

Building Relationships – Communication

Center staff talk to each other about their passions and skills and so they know where to go for assistance (brown bags, minutes, unit meetings,


Table 7.1

145

(continued)

Strength

Future-Present Scenarios (Possibility Propositions) cross-functional team meetings, info. briefs, round tables, trip debriefs, training events).

Building Relationships – Leadership

Center managers encourage staff to voice opinions and talk freely on a regular basis about issues that are important to all.

Belief in PSO – Organizational Practices and Routines

Center staff participate in regular brown bags and happy hours organized with appropriate crosssections of the organization. Once a quarter meet informally to share knowledge.

Empowerment – Leadership

Division chiefs (DC) encourage and support all staff to take leadership responsibility.

Empowerment – Organizational Practices and Routines

Self-organized team structure with latitude for individuals to determine work schedules, including working outside the building and ‘standard work hours’.

Belief in PSO – Organizational Structure

Increase cross-unit communication, collaboration via bi-monthly meetings and key shareholders. Print out all weekly minutes (details) where all staff can view.

empowerment, belief in the PSO mission, and building relationships, first articulated in the pilot session and later echoed throughout the interviews, confirmed the observation that Center employees lived by these values. Identifying the knowledge enablers and validating them through individual interviews at the Center was therefore a highly positive affirmative act for the GMU team. All of these knowledge enablers were so inter-connected that one would not be able to exist without the other. In the section that follows we found it appropriate to discuss each of these knowledge enablers in detail and to describe excerpts from the numerous interesting stories that the GMU team heard throughout the study. Knowledge Enabler 1: Empowerment ‘We are all in it together’ was the most prevailing attitude of the management and employees of the PSO Center. It was the same dedication and sense of togetherness which were the driving forces behind the knowledge enabler of empowerment. Due to the nature of their work and the mission they exist for, empowerment was very prevalent in PSO. In some ways it can

146


be considered the sequel to ‘belief in PSO’s mission’. Almost all of the employees who were interviewed felt that the Center had an egalitarian style of leadership. This was not surprising since in an empowered organization such as the PSO the staff should not be expected to be told what to do, but they should know what to do on their own. The management trusted the employees at the Center and believed that they would put their best effort into everything they do. One of the employees remarked, ‘Management knows that people here are not here to waste their time but would get things done no matter what it takes.’ ‘Empowerment is evident when individuals in an organization gradually acquire the autonomy, freedom and authority to make appropriate decisions within the domain of their influence’ (Thatchenkery, 2005, p. 53). At the Center employees collaborated actively and formed work groups across different departments to handle specific issues or projects. The associates were given freedom to utilize their time the best way they thought and did not have to go through a lengthy red tape process to get involved in work groups. To join in work groups they did not have to get permission from their supervisors because supervisors trusted their employees to carry their projects through. ‘They do not micro manage, they trust us to do our work’, said another employee. Through a review process one employee was encouraged to write a handbook to share her knowledge. This became very popular within the PSO and proved to be of worldwide use. In another instance an employee took the initiative to put together catalogs of information resources available within the PSO on compact discs which will help volunteers know what resources are available within the Center when they go out to different geographical locations. She later shared this with the training and recruiting staff, who ended up using the CD for their purposes. The management acknowledged that as more freedom and decision making capacities were given to their employees within the scope of their work, knowledge sharing happened more effectively. It was crucial for the Center management to value employee suggestions and manage accordingly, and they were well aware of this. Most of the employees at the Center had been volunteers in the field before and therefore knew the realities faced by the field staff. As a result, they were able to support the staff effectively and with empathy. As in any other empowered organization, at the PSO Center too, employees felt responsible beyond their own job and wanted to make the whole organization work better. They had a sense of ownership and satisfaction in their accomplishments, which made them strive harder and share the knowledge that they had acquired in the process. Through empowerment the Center management had been able to help release the untapped employee


147

creativity and motivation to solve business problems. ‘I am not pigeonholed here and could utilize many of my skills to the fullest potential for helping others, in contradiction to the earlier job I was in. There I would be just asked to do my job and mind my own business and nothing more’, remarked an employee who used his skills in graphic designing to help with many projects at the Center even though his job was not directly related to those projects. Center staff with a strong sense of being empowered constantly worked at providing better service for the volunteers around the world. Empowerment also relied upon the efficient coaching of management, which helped employees take on more responsibility. Further, Center management took proactive steps to make sure that employees were kept up to date with information on what was happening in the field. For example, the whole Center staff were involved in the Annual Strategic Meetings and Annual Project Plan Reviews. This helped employees respond effectively and creatively toward the challenges that were brought by the field staff. Thus empowerment was not just an attractive alternative or an ideologically fancy concept for the Center management, but a fundamental way the Center employees understood and went about doing their daily work. It was indeed their mental model. Knowledge Enabler 2: Collaboration Stories from Center staff indicated collaboration as a strong knowledge enabler which appeared to be a common practice in the way staff did their work. During the initial group meeting with employees from the Center, several participants shared stories in which collaboration was a knowledge enabler in their work. One story mentioned exchanging ideas with colleagues over lunch. Other stories mentioned Center staff from different areas working together to support workshops and other training activities for volunteers. One story referred to the practice of staff sitting in cubicles close together so there was easy access to colleagues. Proximity was often a key factor in collaboration, and most Center staff worked on the same floor in the headquarters. Participants in the second phase of the project confirmed collaboration as a driving force in knowledge sharing in the Center – especially across stovepipes. Collaboration occurred both formally and informally, both across units within divisions and across divisions. In all three divisions, collaboration was mentioned as a major enabler for knowledge sharing. The individual interviews revealed there was strong top management support for collaboration among Center staff. Collaboration was seen as a necessity for overcoming the PSO’s five year rule which restricted the length of service for employees. One interviewee indicated that some staff stayed in

148


touch with predecessors ‘to get their viewpoints based on the experience they had here’. Center staff also collaborated with PSO staff in other parts of headquarters as well as in-country staff. In one case, the Director of Diversity Recruitment related his collaboration with a member of the Center staff to develop a diversity starter kit. The knowledge the Center had regarding the experience of diverse groups of volunteers in the field was used to help in recruitment efforts. Because many of the Center staff interviewed were PSO volunteers or worked in the field with volunteers before coming to HQ, there seemed to be an added appreciation for collaboration as well as for knowledge sharing in general. During the final group session Center staff created 16 future-present scenarios, three of which focused on collaboration. Those three scenarios demonstrated their interest in formally recognizing and developing collaboration among colleagues as well as maintaining relationships with former staff. Other organizations have successfully done this through communities of practice and the Center may choose to investigate that as a possible implementation. As an organization, the Center had an interest in further developing competence in the area of collaboration. Because their role in supporting volunteers in the field was at the center of the PSO’s mission, it would make sense to continue to develop this competence to take advantage of all the knowledge they collectively possessed, both in current and former staff. Knowledge Enabler 3: Belief in the PSO Mission During the first phase of our project, the GMU team identified a key knowledge enabler as belief in the PSO mission. In subsequent interviews with staff members, the uniqueness of this organization became more focused. They shared the historical context that is crucial to understanding the culture of the PSO. Many of the Center staff interviewed shared stories that confirmed their strongly held belief that the PSO had a worthwhile purpose and role. In addition to an acknowledgement of the overall PSO mission, the staff acknowledged the specific missions of the Center, which were promoting the use of core training fundamentals and standards, while at the same time supporting the necessary flexibility that enabled country-specific needs and best practices to be honored. The staff felt that leadership at the PSO Center strongly believed in its mission. This was why one of the Deputy Directors formed a project team to look at why the PSO was in a country, why it stayed, and why it left. The Center wanted to insure that the PSO was adhering to its mission and that


149

it could respond quickly by having data at hand. Another staff member shared that there was a celebratory culture there, such as the annual PSO week. There was high value placed on recognition of its mission, women’s rights, ethnicity, gay rights, and so on. ‘I can proclaim that the mission of the Center is to provide support for those working in the field.’ Yet another staff member told us that ‘I am very mindful of the necessities of field volunteers and know that for many who work in remote areas the Center is their only source of information as access to other sources is very limited. I try to gather and disseminate information quickly.’ ‘Through organized meetings and training events, I get to share my experiences as a returned volunteer. I have the opportunity to provide valuable information and can structure training programs that will make a great contribution to the quality of training for new volunteers. I feel as though I can also encourage those who may be interested in service with the PSO as well’, remarked one volunteer. Another story shared was how a group left Philadelphia by bus for New York City for a flight out of the country to an overseas post. However, the flight was canceled due to the weather. The guest coordinator (first time volunteer) stayed in constant contact with the travel agency, PSO Center office, and country desk staff. All employees worked diligently to make alternative arrangements and assist in this situation. Everyone at the Center strongly believed in the mission of getting these volunteers to their post. Finally, in another example, a project team performed extensive research and developed a database on countries where the PSO was active. This database will be used by leadership to make decisions on where the PSO volunteers will be sent. Each story confirmed to us that most staff members we interviewed believed that their jobs were vital to allow the Center and the PSO to strongly support its volunteers and the countries in which they serve. Knowledge Enabler 4: Building Relationships ‘Building relationships’ was identified as a knowledge enabler for the PSO Center. For example, a database manager told a story about how she was responsible for designing, developing, and analyzing databases for Center staff so her job revolved around building relationships. She stated that there was very good open communication and understanding. Another administrative assistant focused on the importance of building relationships at the Center. She said the Center worked to build a sense of community among education program managers in the countries. The Center staff also acted as facilitators and guides (springboards providing motivation), helping program managers go from concept to working plan.

150


One employee shared the following lengthy but descriptive narrative about building relationships: The leadership of the Center promotes building relationships by inviting all PSO Center employees to attend these meetings. Being exposed to individuals from all departments and collaborating on the decisions helps to establish relationships. Informal relationships build trust that facilitates the solving of problems. The time allotted to these meetings lets employees spend a substantial block of time with each other. Individuals get to know each other through the exchange of ideas. The open atmosphere builds relationships because there is no grandstanding and everyone can speak freely. The cross-channel style of communication builds relationships with members of other departments.

Building relationships was also central to the work of the group that provided the training necessary for PSO volunteers. This group stayed in contact with other departments and built relationships so that they could help each other in times of necessity. Knowledge sharing and trust were actively promoted at the meetings. The group responsible for data collection at the Center also held building relationships in high regard. The Center routinely put teams together, which was supposed to help build relationships. The teams were crossfunctional, which helped build relationships due to exposure of individuals to those from other departments. A Health and HIV/AIDS Specialist recounted a story where two technology specialists from the Global Unit volunteered to teach her how to use Blackboard collaborative software. The specialist was trained and was ready to conduct a virtual follow-up workshop with participants in Africa using the new technology. From the discussions with the Center employees and from the stories they shared it was quite clear that the Center had a culture of knowledge sharing and the employees strongly valued the necessity and importance of knowledge sharing. This was an organization which already had much of the needed positive energy in place for successful Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge to happen. And it was also worth noting that the Center was already undertaking many initiatives to channel this energy in the right direction and to bring forth a culture which constantly encouraged and enhanced the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge.

CONCLUSION The PSO Center had strong natural inclinations toward knowledge sharing which was evident from the stories Center staff readily shared with the GMU team demonstrating collaboration and empowerment. The Center


151

was unique in its mission to provide direct support to PSO in-country staff and volunteers in the field. It was abundantly clear that the men and women who worked at the Center believed passionately in the PSO’s mission. As one staff member said, ‘it’s not just a job’. Finally, the five year rule made knowledge sharing and retention all the more crucial. While the turnover in staff created opportunities for new staff to constantly bring in new ideas, there were also opportunities to tap into the experience of former employees.

8. Summary, conclusion, and invitations The most important asset an organization possesses is its intellectual capital located mostly in its employees and on a more limited basis in its databases and systems. ‘The intellect of an organization includes (1) cognitive knowledge (or know what) (2) advanced skills (know how) (3) system understanding and trained intuition (know why), and (4) self motivated creativity (care why)’ (Quinn et al., 2005, p. 78). Organizations that have a greater knowledge base are usually more successful in the market. Companies that have a larger share of intellectual property and know how to use it effectively get ahead in their core sectors. In addition, these companies are also able to recruit and retain better employees since they command a higher place in the market and are held in a higher regard. Given the importance of intellect to an organization’s health and prosperity, knowledge sharing is very important and desirable. Knowledge will grow at exponential rates when it is properly shared within an organization. ‘As one shares knowledge with other units, not only do those units gain information (linear growth), they share it with others and feed back questions, amplifications, and modifications that add further value for the original sender, creating exponential total growth’ (Quinn et al., 2005, p. 79). In order to properly stimulate intellectual growth, organizations must come up with a plan that defines which information should and should not be shared and how the organization plans to encourage knowledge sharing. ‘Best practices in R&D activities, process improvement projects, or redesigned operations do not readily spread within organizations. Transfer of practices tends to be sticky because of multiple factors, including the nature of knowledge and the choices and attributes of its seekers and providers’ (Mahoney and Williams, 2003, p. 679). The motivation to share best practices and knowledge within an organization may be low. This might be due to lack of monetary incentive to share, resistance to change, or a desire to protect one’s position within the organization. There are also hurdles that need to be overcome related to the knowledge itself. Knowledge is a cumulative process. Previous knowledge can be built upon and impacts how well new information is assimilated. A person who has no, or very little, prior knowledge of the subject being discussed will have 152

Summary, conclusion, and invitations

153

a much more difficult time learning and using any knowledge transferred to them than a person who has had some previous exposure to and knowledge of the subject (Javidian et al., 2005). However, obsolete previous knowledge can also slow down the knowledge transfer process when the person is reluctant to adopt new knowledge in favor of the old. Lastly, the social relationship that exists between the knowledge sharer and the recipient also plays a role in knowledge transfer. Knowledge is more readily transferred between people who have prior knowledge of each other than it is between strangers. In order for knowledge sharing to be successful, it is not enough for the people involved wanting to share knowledge, they have to be excited about the process. For many people the ‘primary reason for sharing knowledge is not that they expect to be repaid in the form of other knowledge, but a conviction that their individual knowledge is worth knowing, and that sharing this knowledge with others will be beneficial to their reputation’ (Hoof et al., 2004, p. 1). There is some psychological benefit to sharing knowledge as the sharer may be held in higher esteem by the receiver of the knowledge and may gain status as a result. At a time when change is a must for organizations’ survival, Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge is a refreshing approach in the critical field of knowledge management. This book shares stories of appreciation and knowledge sharing, gives you tips and tools to jump-start a knowledge sharing culture, and leaves your organization with a culture that realizes its fullest potential. Whether the organization be a corporation, nonprofit, government agency, or community of practice within a larger organization, all groups reap significant benefits from Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge. It is a nonthreatening and accepting approach that makes people realize what they do can make a difference. The power of ASK is its simplicity. It can be used for several other topics or issues related to knowledge management. For example, implementing the future-present scenarios may require some form of reorganization of the organization. Or, it might call for creating a team based structure or flattening of hierarchies. At this stage, ASK transcends into traditional organization development or change management work where the original Appreciative Inquiry approach might be applicable. The simplicity of ASK should not mask the need to go through all the steps as listed below (Table 8.1). Rather than starting a knowledge management initiative that becomes one more change for employees to get used to, ASK normally creates an organic and self-perpetuating culture which is designed by members of the organization and therefore is more of a custom fit for a business (Thatchenkery, 2005, p. 108). Following the above steps can help an organization reach an exceptional level of knowledge sharing and thereby create value for all stakeholders.

154

Table 8.1


Overview of ASK steps

Step

Action




As you can see by the various applications of ASK in the private, public, and service organizations, ASK is not a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Rather, it is a framework that allows for customized solutions to knowledge management challenges. There are a wide variety of ways to apply it so that it makes sense in the organization in which you are working. Recognizing that most organizations have the internal capabilities and talents to respond to their constantly emerging challenges, ASK is a methodology that helps bring those successful elements latent in the organization to the forefront. Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge usually exists in some form in many organizations, even though it is not known as such. One common example is the communities of practice discussed earlier in this book. Many organizations may comprise a network of interconnected communities of practice each dealing with specific aspects such as the uniqueness of a longstanding client, manufacturing safety, or technical inventions. Knowledge is created, shared, organized, revised, and passed on within and among these communities. In a deep sense, it is by these communities that knowledge is ‘owned’ in practice. Knowledge exists not just at the core of an organization but on its peripheries as well. Communities of practice truly become organizational assets when their core and their boundaries are active in complementary ways. By recognizing that knowledge is dispersed throughout the organization, particularly at the peripheries, CoP generates an intentionally appreciative climate in organizations. Our intention is for you to use this book to spark ideas and adapt them to fit your organization. We hope that you will have fun engaging with ASK, and that it will provide long-standing results and culture shifts in your organization.

Bibliography Argyris, C. (1993), Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C. (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Barrett, F. and Fry, R. (2005), Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Approach to Building Cooperative Capacity, Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publishing. Behara, R.S., Thatchenkery, T. and Kenney, C. (2006), ‘Empathic knowledge management: Reverse simulation experiments in a learning laboratory’, International Journal of Information Technology and Management, forthcoming. Bell, Daniel (1976), The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, New York: Basic Books. Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1966), The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Anchor Books. Bieler, L. (1966), Ireland: Harbinger of the Middle Ages, London: Oxford University Press. Bitel, L. (1990), Isle of the Saints. Monastic Settlement and Christian Community in Early Ireland, Cork: Cork University Press. Bourdieu, B.P. and Wacquant, L.P. (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cahill, T. (1995), How the Irish Saved Civilization. The Untold Story of Ireland’s Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe, London: Sceptre. Cheal, D. (1990), ‘Social construction of consumption’, International Sociology, 5(3), 305–306. Checkland, P. (1985), ‘From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990’s’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 757–767. Checkland, P.B. and Casar, A. (1986), ‘Vicker’s concept of an appreciative system: A systematic account’, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 3, 3–17. Comenius, J.A. (1659), The Visible World in Pictures, London: printed for Aaron Ward, 1729.

155

156


Comte, A. (1970), An Introduction to Positive Philosophy, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Cooperrider, D. (1990), ‘Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of organizing’, In S. Srivastva, D.L. Cooperrider and associates (eds), Executive Appreciation and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 91–125. Cooperrider, D. and Srivastva, S. (1987), ‘Appreciative Inquiry in organizational life’, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129–169. Cooperrider, D. and Whitney, D. (2005), Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1990), Flow; The Psychology of Optimal Experience, New York: Harper Row. Denning, Steve (2000), The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations, Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Denning, Steve (2004), Squirrel Inc. A Fable of Leadership through Storytelling, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ehin, Charles (2000), Unleashing Intellectual Capital, Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Elbow, P. (1973), Writing Without Teachers, London: Oxford University Press. Gergen, K.J. (1994a), Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Construction, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gergen, K.J. (1994b), Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge (2nd edn), London: Sage. Gergen, K.J. (1999), An Invitation to Social Construction, London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gergen, K. and Thatchenkery, T. (2004), ‘Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 228–249. Graham, H. (1923), The Early Irish Monastic Schools, Dublin: Talbot Press. Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action (T. McCarthy, Trans.), Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Hall, Trish (1998), ‘Seeking a Focus on Joy In the Field of Psychology’, The New York Times, April 28. Section: Science Desk. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hoof, Bart van den, Ridder, Jan de and Aukema, Eline (2004), ‘The eagerness to share: Knowledge sharing, ICT and social capital’, Working Paper, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Bibliography

157

Hughes, K. (1966), The Church in Early Irish Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Javidian, Mansour, Stahl, Gunter K., Brodbeck, Felix, and Wilderon, Celeste P.M. (2005), ‘Cross-border transfer of knowledge: Cultural lessons from Project Globe’, The Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 59–76. Kierein, N. and Gold, M. (2000), ‘Pygmalion in work organizations: A Meta-analysis’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 913–924. Lee, R.B. (1979), The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society, London: Cambridge University Press. Lewin, K. (1951/1997), Field Theory in Social Science, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Locke, John (1695a), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Abridged, edited and introduced by Maurice Cranston (1965). 1st edn, New York: Collier Books. Locke, John (1695b), Some Thoughts Concerning Education, The third edition enlarged, (1965), London, printed for A. and J. Churchill, New York: Collier Books. Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translation from the French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mahoney, Joseph T. and Williams, Charles (2003), ‘Book review: Sticky knowledge: Barriers to knowing in the firm’, Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 679. Marcel, G. (1963), The Existential Background of Human Dignity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Maslow, Abraham (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper. McGrath, Paul (2005), ‘Thinking differently about knowledge-intensive firms: Insights from early Medieval Irish monasticism’, Organization, 12(4), 549–566. McGregor, D., (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw Hill. Murphy, D., Campbell, C. and Garavan, T. (1999), ‘The Pygmalion effect reconsidered: Its implications for education, training and workplace learning’, Journal of European Industrial Training, 23(4/5), 238–249. National Commission on Terrorist Attack (2004), 9/11 Commission Report: The Final National Commission on Terrorist Attack Upon the United States, New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), ‘The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation’, California Management Review, 40(3), 40–54.

158


O’Croinin, D. (1995), Early Medieval Ireland: 400–1200, London: Longman. O’Fiaich, T. (1994), ‘The beginnings of Christianity’, in T.W. Moody and F.X. Martin (eds), The Course of Irish History, Dublin: Mercier Press. Ochsner, Kevin N. and Lieberman, Matthew D. (2001), ‘The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience’, American Psychologist, 56(9), 717–734. Pfeffer, J. (1982), Organization and Organization Theory, Boston, MA: Pitman. Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Power, M. (1991), The Egalitarians – Human and Chimpanzee, New York: Cambridge University Press. Quinn, James B., Anderson, Philip and Finkelstein, Sydney (2005), ‘Leveraging Intellect’, Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 78–79. Reynolds, D. (2002), ‘The good, the bad, and the ugly of incorporating “My fair lady” in the workplace’, SAM Advanced Management Journal, 67(3), 4–11. Rogers, C. (1980/1995), A Way of Being, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rosenthal, R. (1995), ‘Critiquing pygmalion: A 25-year perspective’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(6), 171–172. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. (1968), Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils’ Intellectual Development, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rowe, G. and O’Brien, J. (2002), ‘The role of Golem, Pygmalion, and Galatea effects on opportunistic behavior in the classroom’, Journal of Management Education, 26(6), 612–629. Ryan, Rev. J. (1972), Irish Monasticism. Origins and Early Development, Shannon: Irish University Press. Schiff, M. (1992), ‘Social capital, labor mobility, and welfare: The impact of uniting states’, Rationality and Society, 4, 157–175. Schutz, A. and Luckman, T. (1966), The Structure of the Life-World, Translated by R.M. Zaner and H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. (1973), Evaston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Seligman, M. (1991), Learned Optimism, New York: A.A. Knopf. Seligman, M., Maier, S. and Geer, J. (1968), ‘The alleviation of learned helplessness in dogs’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 256–262. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday. Srivastva, S., Cooperrider, D.L. and associates (1990), Executive Appreciation and Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thatchenkery, T. (1992), ‘Organizations as “Texts”: Hermeneutics as a model for understanding organizational change’, Research in Organization Development and Change, 6, 197–233.

Bibliography

159

Thatchenkery, T. (1994), ‘Hermeneutic processes in organizations: A study in relationships between observers and those observed’, Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Thatchenkery, T. (2005), Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge: Leveraging Knowledge Management for Strategic Change, Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publishing. Thatchenkery, T. and Metzker, C. (2006), Appreciative Intelligence: Seeing the Mighty Oaks in the Acorn, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Van Doren, C. (1991), A History of Knowledge: Past, Present, and Future, Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Co. Vickers, G. (1965), The Art of Judgment, New York: Basic Books. Vickers, G. (1968), Value Systems and Social Process, New York: Basic Books. Walker, A. (2001), Sent by Earth, New York: Seven Stories Press. Weick, K. (1982), ‘Affirmation as inquiry’, Small Group Behavior, 13, 441–442. Weick, K. (1989), ‘Theory construction as disciplined imagination’, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516–532. Weick, K. (1999), ‘Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoffs in the 90s’, Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 797–807. Wheatley, M. and Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996), A Simpler Way, San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.

Index After Action Review (AAR) US Army 6, 40 Age of Enlightenment 24 Akkadians 14 appreciation elements of 36, 49 and grand narratives 26 hermeneutics circle of 35 systems thinking 36 what is 32, 33 appreciative inquiry socio-rationalist point of view 45 sociology of knowledge 45 appreciative intelligence 47–8 appreciative interviews 56, 57, 94, 123, 124, 154 appreciative knowledge sharing paradigm 8, 51–3, 93–4, 119, 154 appreciative processes Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 37–40 appreciative system general structure of 36–7 Arabic scholars 22 Argyris, C. 42, 65 Aristotle 16–18, 22, 23 Greek ‘explosion’ 16 Assyrians 14

Cheal, D. 27 Checkland, P. 35–9 Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) 9, 74, 81 Chowdhry, D. x coffee talk 87 collaborative software Blackboard 150 Lotus Notes 2 commodification 24, 26 Communities of Practice (CoP) 14, 29, 53, 61, 62, 65, 69, 86, 106, 148, 153, 154 community involvement 82, 84 Comte, A. 27 Cooperrider, D. 6, 32, 44–7 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 44 Denning, S. 30–31 doubting game 46 Ehin, C. 4, 13 Elbow, P. 46 emancipation, meta-narrative of 25 enlightened leadership 80

Babylonians 14 believing game 46 Bell, D. 27 Benedictine monasteries 22 best practices 77–8, 85–9, 122, 128, 148, 152 Bieler, L. 19–20 Bitel, L. 21 Buckman Laboratories 29

flow 42, 44 Future-present scenarios commitment 66–8 consensual validation 8, 51, 71, 106, 107, 125, 154 constructing 8, 64, 65, 66, 69, 103, 113, 124, 125, 154 generating 2, 42, 43 groundedness 66, 107, 113 inspiration 66, 107, 113 matrix for constructing 69

Capability Maturity Model 134 Case Western Reserve University 29, 44 Cashinahua Indians 25

Galatea effect 5, 33, 34, 59 Gergen, K.T. 6 Graham, H. 21 grand narratives 25, 26 161

162


Gurukul Guru–pupil relationship 15 Hinduism 14 Habermas, J. 26 Herzberg, F. 66 Hoof, B. 153 Hughes, K. 20 hunter-gatherers 4, 12–14 Irish monasteries early medieval 19–21 Javidian, M. 153 Kierein, N. 5 Knowledge combination 20, 29, 30, 90, 100, 130, 142 externalization 29, 30 internalization 29, 30 socialization 29, 30 tacit 27–30, 99, 111, 116, 121–2, 120–32 knowledge ambassadors 93, 96, 98, 100, 101, 104, 107, 108, 110, 112, 113 knowledge concierge 80, 84, 85, 86 knowledge conversion process 29, 30 knowledge enablers belief in mission 140–42, 145, 148 building relationships 65, 69, 98, 99, 100, 102, 105–6, 140–41, 149–50 collaboration 140–43, 147, 148 collegiality 56–60 compassion 120, 122–3 effective communication 135 empowerment 98, 99, 100, 102, 105, 106, 140, 142, 145–7, 150 informal interactions 82, 87 internal entrepreneurship 82 knowledge infrastructure analysis 8, 51, 59, 101, 124, 125, 154 opportunity for personal growth 56 participation 56, 60, 70 partnering 120–22 respect 42, 65, 69, 99, 100, 102, 105, 106, 120–21, 130–32

responsiveness 140–42 team philosophy 82 teamwork 56–8, 65, 69, 99, 100 trust 97, 120, 132 valuing autonomy 56 knowledge-hoarding, climate 3 knowledge management practices 14 storytelling 29, 30, 54 knowledge poster 86 Knowledge sharing 9/11 Commission Report 1 American Revolution 24 appreciative 8, 13, 15, 16, 21, 23, 51–4, 82, 93, 94, 97, 118, 119, 154 Arabic Scholars 22 enlightenment 22, 24 historical Evolution 3 historical perspective 4, 12 prospective approach 5, 40–43, 90 retrospective approach 6, 40–43 two approaches to 2 knowledge vision 87, 131 learned helplessness 41–3 learned optimism 41–3 Lewin, K. 53, 66 lightning bolts 87 Locke, J. 23–4 Lyotard, J.-F. 24–6 Mahoney, J.T. 152 Marcel, G. 46 Maritime Administration (MARAD) 9, 116–32 Maslow, A. 38–40 Mausner, B. 66 McGrath, P. 19–21 McGregor, D. 66, 107 mentoring 15, 31, 85 Mesopotamia 12, 14 middle ages 19–21, 23 modernity 24–7 Moses 12 Murphy, D. 5 My Fair Lady 34 Nonaka, I. 29–30

Index O’Croinin, D. 20 O’Fiaich, T. 20 organizational change 1, 7, 30, 32, 50, 54, 131 overcoming resistance 88, 131 performance appraisal 49, 84–5 performativity 26 Pfeffer, J. 46 phoenicians 12 Plato 12, 16, 17 Plato’s dialogues 17–18 Polanyi, M. 27 possibility propositions 73, 77, 79, 80, 83, 87, 88, 105, 118, 124, 125, 127, 131, 136, 137, 142, 143–5 postmodernism 24–5, 43 power (author) 14 process engineering 133–4 progress, meta-narratives of 25 protestant reformation 23–5 Pygmailion 5, 33–5, 59

Saint Thomas Aquinas 23 Schiff, M. 100 scholasticism 22, 23 Schutz, A. 36 self actualization 26, 38 self-esteem 38, 40, 41 self-fulfilling prophecy 5, 33, 35 Seligman, M. 38, 41, 43, 44 Senge, P. 45 Socrates 12, 16, 17 ‘soft systems’ methodology 36 springboard, the 30–31 Srivastava, S. 6 Sumerians 14 Snyderman, B.B. 66 team facilitation 87 Thatchenkery, T. x, 6, 28, 47, 48, 60–62, 64, 65, 67, 115, 146, 153 Theory Y 107 University of Lancaster 35 Upward Mobility Programs 130–32

Quinn, J.B. 152 reality judgments 36 reciprocity 14 Reynolds, D. 5 Rogers, C. 66 Rosenthal, R. 5, 34, 35, 59 Rowe, G.J. 5 Ryan, Rev. J. 20

value judgments 36 Van Doren, C. 14–18, 23 Veda 14 Vickers, G. 35–7 Walker, A. 32 Weick, K. 46, 47 World Bank 31

163

Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management: A Social Constructionist Perspective

Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change

Postmodernism and Social Inquiry

Social Constructionist Identity Politics and Literary Studies

Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change

Knowledge Networks: The Social Software Perspective

Social Constructionist Psychology: A Critical Analysis of Theory and Practice

Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry: A Socio-Technical Perspective

Knowledge and social imagery

Knowledge Mapping and Management

Designing Social Inquiry

Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective

Multiculturalism and diversity: a social psychological perspective

Air Transportation: A Management Perspective

Air Transportation: A Management Perspective

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge Management

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge Management

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge Management

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge and Information Technology Management: Human and Social Perspectives

Management Knowledge: A Critical View

Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management

Appreciative Inquiry for Collaborative Solutions: 21 Strength-Based Workshops

Information and Knowledge Management: Management Extra

Convergence of Project Management and Knowledge Management

Ethical Issues and Social Dilemmas in Knowledge Management: Organizational Innovation

Social Experience and Anthropological Knowledge

Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development

Appreciative Inquiry and Knowledge Management: A Social Constructionist Perspective

Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change

Postmodernism and Social Inquiry

Social Constructionist Identity Politics and Literary Studies

Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: For Leaders of Change

Knowledge Networks: The Social Software Perspective

Social Constructionist Psychology: A Critical Analysis of Theory and Practice

Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry: A Socio-Technical Perspective

Knowledge and social imagery

Knowledge Mapping and Management

Designing Social Inquiry

Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective

Multiculturalism and diversity: a social psychological perspective

Air Transportation: A Management Perspective

Air Transportation: A Management Perspective

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge Management

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge Management

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge Management

Knowledge in a Social World

Knowledge and Information Technology Management: Human and Social Perspectives

Management Knowledge: A Critical View

Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management

Appreciative Inquiry for Collaborative Solutions: 21 Strength-Based Workshops

Information and Knowledge Management: Management Extra

Convergence of Project Management and Knowledge Management

Ethical Issues and Social Dilemmas in Knowledge Management: Organizational Innovation

Social Experience and Anthropological Knowledge

Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development

Recommend Documents