View
4.658
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
STOP model for knowledge sharing
Citation preview
The Psychological Contract of Knowledge Sharing (KS) in technological organizations
Dr. Ora SetterFaculty of Management – Tel Aviv U
Overview
What is a Psychological Contact Knowledge Management model Is KS a natural act? The STOP model Changing the KS psychological
contract
Psychological Contract Perception of mutual obligations
between employee and organization
Old contract: relationship (loyalty for security) - covenant
New contract: transactional – balance sheet
The new, agile organization Solutions driven (not product or
service) Inside teaming – multifunctional,
networked, virtual, ad-hoc teams as a structure
Outside alliances – coopetition Ever changing and self reinventing Knowledge based
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
CONTENT
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESSES
BUSINESS STRATEGY
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND POLITICS TECHNOLOGICAL
TRANSPARENCY
KM STRATEGY: REUSE OR INVENTION
Is KS natural?Traditional attributions about barriers to
KS:“What’s in it for me”
“Knowledge is power”“The culture”
=Knowledge hoarding is the rule
“altruistic” KS is the exception – you have to “change” people so as to engage in it
“Sharing and using knowledge are often unnatural acts”
Thomas Davenport, - Some principles of knowledge management
Lets go to nature …
Ks is natural- animals do it
KS is essential to specie survival: It is a natural act.
Animals communicate with each other to share information and
behave in ways that benefit other members of the group at some
cost or risk to themselves
WHY? Because they gain collectively by
acquiring information about: food and other resources Reproductive advantages Shelter and space.
And by Avoiding physical and other small hazards competitors predators or other large dangers.
…And people do it by Teaching Writing Storytelling Mentoring Asking questions Playing Preaching
Talking Gossiping Criticizing Modeling Answering
questions Creating cultural
artifacts
Because.. People like to see their knowledge
and expertise used People like to help their colleagues People want to learn from others People get good feeling from the
recognition and respect they get
O’Dell & Grayson – If only we knew what we know
So…
If it is so natural for us to share knowledge
And it is unnatural for us not to share…
How come
We do not do it?
Why do we have problem with organizational KS?
Force field (Kurt Lewin)
Restraining Forces
Driving Forces
The “stop” model Restraining Forces to KS arise
from four levels:Social
TechnologicalOrganizational
PersonalFocus of this presentation – on the
knowledge sharer
Social Barriers
Knowledge defines who is “in” and who is “out”: it is both cause and
effect of social segmentation:
To be “in” you have to be “in the know”
To be “in the know” you have to be “in”
Why? Survival Predictability and certainty Dealing with Cognitive complexity Ease and comfort
Result:
People will share knowledge only with their “in-group” members.
Is the whole organization the “in-group” entity, or - departmental /
hierarchical level / professional membership?
How to overcome mergers?Whole parts
Research finding show that
In 250+ employees’ organizations – weak holistic we-feeling
Proximity is essential for group identityDepartmental membership is the
strongest “glue” for inclusion feelingPeople will share with peers as a duty,
with others - discretionally
To Overcome the Social Barriers We Need to Encourage the holistic view of the
organization - news and information about mission, vision, strategy, plans, actions, and people, and by culture artifacts
Encourage as many different cross-organizational affiliations as possible – f2f and virtual teams and communities
Add translation capabilities Define who is the enemy - the “them” Encourage inside benchmarking Encourage TRUST
Technological Barriers “Technology reflects its’
developers and influences its’ users”
Although the I*Net technology is the friendliest of all IT platforms – it was developed by “techies” is not yet “transparent” to most users
Why? The problem of “media efficacy” People do not “think intranet” Accessibility, Ease of use: down
times, slow response time, broken links and streamlines
Problems of transparency and privacy
Overload of “garbage” information and not good enough search bots
Results
KS is mediated through opaque technology, so:
It takes time and effort to share knowledge, the process is not
natural, and it’s easy to back off
Overcome the technological barriers
KISS!!!! Adjust applications to bandwidth and
hardware – and to computer efficacy and culture
Design and build KS applications with joint teams of technology, content and process professionals
Support systems and informal areas Train, teach, promote, show, ask, cajole
force, order, beg, show, tempt…
Organizational Barriers
Culture, culture, culture…
No organizational Sharing SpaceTangible and not tangible
Organizational Knowledge ideology:
Markets Covenants
Culture Information or technical focused (not
people) Centralistic Bureaucratic, stable, inflexible Hierarchic Strict division of labor Rational - productivity and efficiency driven Structure and procedures discourage
challenging paradigms
Organizational space
“How can an organization transfer knowledge effectively? Hire smart
people and let them talk to one another”
Need for emotional, physical and temporal space, legitimacy for “sharing activity”, contrary to “don’t waste time”
We are punished for doing KS
Solutions: Knowledge cafe Talk room – actual and virtual Knowledge fair Open forums and chats Communities of action “icq”, “odigo”, “third voice”, “gooey” Enlightened management
University, linux, cyberculture
Consultants, “expert exchange” microsoft
example
Cooperation and creation“fountain of knowledge”
Exchange and reuse
Objective of ks
Trust and faithobligations
Trust and rulesentitlements
Conditionsfocus
Re-creation and economy of knowledgeFun and kinship
Intangible payment: reciprocity, repute, altruism
rewards
Development of society
Personal utilityValue in
Partners and servers of knowledge
Buyer, seller, broker
participants
Mission, Public goodProperty , possession
Knowledge is
CovenantMarket – balance sheet
Problems with Market ideology Incompleteness of information Asymmetry of knowledge Localness of knowledge Monopolies Artificial scarcity Trade barriers
(Davenport & Prusak)
Problems with covenant Reliance on motivation and
goodwill Power disguised as ideology Possible abuse of the knowledge
shared Burnout Difficulties in maintenance
result: Insecurity (and hoarding) Lack of trust in peers and managers
(and withholding info and knowledge)
Negative attitudes to the organization (and distortion of knowledge)
Feeling of abuse
Current Trend
Mix – up between covenant and market:
Covenant organizations (civil service) are getting more market oriented
Market organizations are getting more covenant oriented.
Result
No clear expectations about KS: what are the obligations?
what are the entitlements?
What is the contract?
Adequate organizational practices Rewards Recognition Prizes (NIHBIDIA) Exchange Evaluation “Assist” league Clear definition of “who owns the
knowledge”
Personal barriers
Ignorance as to the extent and relevance of our knowledgeThe problem of the cow…
Problems with personal barriers We don’t know that we know what we
know, we don’t know how we know it We don’t reflect on our knowledge, or it
is too complex We don’t appreciate that our knowledge
is relevant and valuable We don’t feel comfortable to “promote”
our knowledge, we shy from criticism We don’t push our knowledge when
nobody ever asked us about it
Result
“Tunnel vision” and “silo organization”
This is the main barrier
What to do? Open communication channels Combination of f2f and virtual
meetings A network of expert exchange Facilitation is essential Mobilization of direct managers
Organizational culture
Personal insecurities
Technological opaqueness
Social boundaries
Changing the psychological contract Clarify mutual obligations to
include explicitly knowledge sharing as part of the job
Clarify who owns what knowledge Who owns usage rights Allocation of time and space for KS Clarify what are the learning duties What is exchange and what is duty
Changing the contract Change, if not done in cooperation,
is perceived as “breach” The change of the contract should
be perceived as fair, never abusive.
Change should be pervasive to all organization’s levels, not only to lower levels
Recommended