text:
Learning Theories/Organizational Learning: Practice

Introduction
We have all heard the old adage, “Practice makes perfect.” This saying still holds true, especially when it comes to learning. However, you cannot replicate something until you know how it works.

An organization cannot become a learning organization until it understands how it learns and transfers that learning from individual to corporate routines. Part of understanding an organization and its ability to be a learning environment can be found by studying the history of that organization. Fear wrote, in order “to illuminate organizational learning, a historian would need to deconstruct the way legitimacy was rhetorically and symbolically created within the organization over time, not just in a particular snapshot of time. To examine this process of change, organizational learning theorists could analyze crucial turning points in time when previous forms of legitimate reasoning made way for new ones” (Dierkes, Berthoin, Antal, Child & Nonaka, 2001, p. 183). By analyzing the steps of development as they occur, an organization can refine it's practices to best know how they learn, develop, and grow. They then can begin to establish an appropriate organizational learning framework.

Architectural framework for organizational learning
Direkes, et al. (2004) “emphasize that organizational learning…requires both the appropriate structural mechanisms and the cultural conditions that promote habits of inquiry, experimentation, and reflection” (p. 755). This reference to structural mechanisms and cultural conditions is very similar to Senge’s (1994) suggestion in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, that organizational learning is put to practice within a triangular architectural framework constructed of three elements: guiding ideas (or visions), means, and practical resources for application.

Imperative to the development of a learning organization - through practice, is the existence of each one of the aforementioned elements; the lack of any one element leads to a collapse of the triangular framework. For example, learning would be constrained if the cultural conditions (means) of the organization were such that there exists a lack of commitment to learning or intolerance toward errors. Employees operating in such an environment will not be inclined to realize new concepts nor apply new methods so long as the means – the cultural freedom to practice learning – is non-existent or is constrained. “Leaders intent on developing learning organizations must focus on all three of the architectural design elements” (Senge, 1994, p. 36).

Dimensions of learning practice
There are man theoretical positions and conceptual models of organizational learning. Additionally, there are many tools and instruments available in the literature – a sort of “how to” guide to organizational learning. Absent are the criteria that would indicate which tool or instrument is best suited to a specific learning opportunity. However, Pawlowsky, Forslin, and Reinhardt (2003), suggest that no matter the underlying theory, all approaches to learning practices share similar dimensions. These include (Pawlowsky et al., 2003):

 * 1) Reference to a system level, especially the transfer of knowledge from the individual level to the organizational level.
 * 2) A distinction between learning types – single-loop, double-loop, and deuteron.
 * 3) A reference to cognitive, cultural, and action approaches.
 * 4) A definition of process steps or phases in which learning occurs.

The authors go on to define learning tools as “instruments or interventions designed to bring about one or more of the process phases involving the various dimension of organizational learning (system levels, learning types, and learning modes)” (Pawlowsky, Forslin, & Reinhardt, 2003, p. 776). In other words, there is no single learning tool or practice that will suffice for all learning applications. Looking forward, this definition and the framework of learning dimensions described above, allow for empirical study on the effectiveness of specific tools for various learning opportunities, learning types, and steps in the learning process.

Critical factors for organizational learning
Garvin (1993) cites three critical factors that are essential for organizational learning in practice: meaning, management, and measurement, each further defined as follows:

Meaning. For learning to be a meaningful organizational goal, it must be widely understood, have application to the work being performed, and be supported by the organizational leadership. A key means of support is the tolerance of mistakes or failures. The organizational culture must embrace reasonable risk-taking such that mistakes or failures become learning opportunities that can be spread throughout the  organization. Management. The generation of new ideas does not necessarily indicate an organization’s ability to learn. Until those new ideas, or knowledge, are accompanied by a change to the way an organization performs work, then only improvement is taking place. For an organization to learn, a change must take place and that newly gained knowledge must be intentional and managed. That is the learning must be by design, not by chance. Learning practices and policies must be the foundation of “managed” organizational learning. Garvin suggests five basic practices that organizations can manage to enable organizational learning: systematic problem solving, experimentation, the use of demonstration projects, experiential learning, and learning from others on the outside, e.g., benchmarking. Measurement. There is an old management saying that “you get what you measure”. So, if you want to know whether your organization is indeed learning, how do you measure it? The earliest measurements, those developed in the 1920’s and 1930’s were learning curves and manufacturing progress functions. But these are not necessarily sufficient for the level of organizational learning we are looking to measure. Measurements must effectively gage the stages of organizational learning: cognitive -- where members are exposed to new ideas or knowledge; behavioral changes – where members actually alter their behavior based on new learning; and finally, performance improvement – where behavioral changes actual lead to positive business results in safety, quality, market share, and profitability (Garvin, 1993).

Core disciplines of organizational learning
Organizational learning focuses on the practice of five core disciplines. Those disciplines are the foundation of organizational learning. They include: 1) Systems thinking-seeing things as a whole yet being tuned into the parts ; 2) Team learning- the creativity or synergy of the group, which practices open, honest communication and mutual trust; 3) Shared vision- when the organization is aware of the goal or vision and the practice requires the knowledge of how the whole organization works together; 4) Mental models- how we see the world and the practice of bringing these assumptions out and assisting other to do the same; and 5) Personal mastery - the identification and questions about your life purpose and the practice requires deep inter exploration and the ability to take risks.

Organizational learning goals
Why would an organization want to go through the time consuming process of establishing a learning organization? One goal for putting organizational learning concepts into practice is innovation. When all available resources are effectively used across the functional departments of an organization, creativity and ingenuity can transpire. As a result, the process of an organization working together to overcome an obstacle can lead to a new innovative process to serve the customer's need. Before an organization can be innovative, leadership must create a culture of innovation as well as shared knowledge and organizational learning. Angel (2006), explains the Continuum approach as a method being used to help organizations reach a higher level of performance.

The Continuum approach consists of three levels: foundation, advanced, and breakthrough. In the foundation level, organizations normally improve their performance by working harder while terminating employees not performing up to standards. The advanced level of the Continuum allows for cross-functional collaboration of individual departments in an organization. At the advanced level, productivity and flexibility increases because operational decisions are allowed at lower levels. However, "the advanced level will only take an organization so far" (Angel, 2006, p. 4). To move to the breakthrough level and help the organization reach a new level of performance and innovation, "an adaptive, knowledge and learning culture" must be established (Angel). At the breakthrough level, organizations achieve organization-wide self-actualization because they support self-directed teams, implement robust learning information systems, and constantly analyze the needs and values of their customers.

Impediments to organizational learning
Anxiety and stress can impede and sometime paralyze effective learning. Landy and Conte (2004) explain a common approach to stress management often used in organizational settings – stress inoculation. This cognitive-behavioral learning consists of:

 * 1) An educational component: gaining insights into the “how and why” a person responds to stressful experiences.
 * 2) A rehearsal experience: learning and experimenting with coping skills and problem solving techniques.
 * 3) A controlled opportunity of application: time of practice skills under simulated conditions.

There are some impediments that are unique to individuals in the organization. These hindrances are potential pitfalls in working towards a culture of embracing learning. Impediments such as individualism, self-centeredness, lack of motivation, reluctance, established behavior, and past negative experiences all impact the organization's overall efforts in organizational learning.

Once an organization is aware and anticipatory of individual stress responses to the implementation of organizational learning practices, they can begin to affect the anxiety and stress factors in positively. Learning can occur when the anxiety that surrounds learning is outweighed by the anxiety tied to fighting for survival. The two ways to promote learning are either to decrease learning anxiety by creating a safe environment or to increase survival anxiety by threatening jobs if the individual does not learn. Educating employees on the economic climate which influences survival and creating a safe environment where they can learn is a healthy balance between the two (Coutu, 2002).

Creating conditions for organizational learning
The practice of organizational change must address issues within that limit and hinder and organization’s growth and progress. Organizational learning seeks to address the full spectrum of assumptions, behaviors, and values within, and the organization’s interaction with the systems, persons, and groups surrounding the organization. While much of the surrounding systems and environment cannot be controlled by an organization, they are able to grown and change to address the challenges and issues within and without through organizational learning.

Friedman, Lipshitz, and Overmeer in Dierkes, Antal, Child, & Nonaka (2003) “define organizational learning as a process of inquiry (often in response to errors or anomalies) through which members of an organization develop shared values and knowledge based on past experiences of themselves and of others" (p. 757)

The goal of organizational learning is to foster “critical and reflective attitude towards the information being processes, and that lead to actions to which organizational actors feel internally committed” (p. 757).

This will involve both single-loop learning, which the processes by which individuals and organizations detect and correct errors in their behavioral strategies and double-loop learning, which involves processing the underlying values, objectives, and standards for performance.

“In order to make double loop learning possible, Argyris and Schon (1974) took the visionary step of prescribing a ‘Model 2 theory-in-use’ (p.7), which is based on three simple values (or variables): valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment to the choice and monitoring of its implementation” (p. 757).

Individuals capable of internalizing values will display a variety of attitudes and skills while in dialogue with other learners. They will “combine advocacy with inquiry, making statements that are discomfirmable, openly testing their own inferences, inquiring into the reasoning of others, working with others to design means of protection, and jointly controlling tasks” (p. 758). These attitudes and behaviors form the foundational framework of genuine organizational learning and change.

Summary
"There used to be a sense among managers that learning simply happened intuitively: organizations succeeded and survived, or they failed" (Berthoin Antal, Child, Dierkes, and Nonaka, 2003, p. 932). However, research has proven that the practice of learning, whether it is individual or organizational, promotes learning in other individuals and/or organizations. And that it must be practiced to be effectual. Effective learning is not something that happens accidentally or simply by chance. Effective organizational learning is developed as a part of the culture, integrated into daily practice. New learning is emerging in organizations and corporate environments and is driven by the fast paced introduction of knowledge and new ideas from a variety of sources. It is imperative that organizations understand the rhythms of the information tides and the emerging learning practices will have to be far different than those of the past. Trends suggest that learning practices will be from a variety of sources and not necessarily organizationally or theory driven. Berthoin Antal, Child, Dierkes, and Nonaka (2003) posit, "The extent to which these practices actually help organizations achieve learning goals will depend on how earnestly and critically their members engage in assessing their experiences" (p. 933).

Case studies & workplace examples
The Toyota Production System (TPS) has become a global movement to streamline an organization’s practice toward efficiency and productivity. Liker and Morgan (2006), share insights into TPS demonstrating the integration of three primary foci for the system: people, process and technology.

Four keys to “process” in the TPS involve, 1) develop, align, track and activate customer-driven objectives throughout the organization; 2)  prevent problems with a wide range of research and alternatives prior to productivity; 3) evaluate the flow of the process in order to create a waste-free process; 4) utilize rigorous standards to reduce variation and produce predictable outcomes.

Six principles comprise the TPS approach to people:

 * 1) Establish a “chief engineer” to integrate the entire product process.
 * 2) Organize a balance between functional expertise and productivity.
 * 3) Develop technical competence in all hires.
 * 4) Fully incorporate suppliers in the product development system.
 * 5) Insure continuous organizational learning and improvement.
 * 6) Build a culture of excellence and relentless development.

The third focus, tools and technology, has three foundation stones:

 * 1) Adopt technology to fit your people and your process.
 * 2) Use simple and visual means of communication to unify your organization.
 * 3) Use standardization tools to provide organizational learning from program to program.


text:
Learning Theories/Knowledge Management: Challenges

While the field of Knowledge Management has long been studied by scholars of several disciplines, there remain significant challenges for the future. These challenges reside in both theoretical and conceptual studies as well as practice and application. Change will be omnipresent – requiring organizations to make incremental or continuous improvements, and breakthrough or “game-changing” advances. The question is: What are the contributions that Knowledge Management will make as a field of study and a relevant practice (Dierkes, Berthoin Antal, Child, & Nonaka, 2003).

According to Reinhardt, Bornemann, Pawlowsky and Schneider (2003), "With knowledge as one of the most important resources today. . . management obviously should attempt to identify, generate, deploy, and develop knowledge" (p. 794). The concept of knowledge management and the degree to which its value is outpacing the tangible assets of companies has become an issue of concern for many organizations and managers. "Human capital is seen as a company's total workforce and its knowledge about the business...It is seen as crucial for marshaling the company's assets, both tangible and intangible" (Reinhardt, et al., 2003, p. 796). The theoretical/conceptual challenge lies in the lack of common definition of Knowledge Management. There exists widespread variation in how scholars define it. Like the field of Leadership, there needs to be further study and dialogue on what defines Knowledge Management. It is only from that common understanding that the field itself will flourish rather than becoming a popular management fad.

Manageability
Dierkes, Antal, Child, & Nonaka (2003) state, "If knowledge is an essential resource for establishing competitive advantage, then management obviously should attempt to identify, generate, deploy, and develop knowledge. Hence, managers need more knowledge about knowledge and about how it can be managed, if it can be managed at all" (p. 794). In a world replete with knowledge and information (often similar in meaning), or its possible acquisition, what is often missing within organizations are the processes for dissemination. As with most things, knowledge is only as good as its contextual applicability. Once knowledge/information has been determined to be useful, and applicable to a particular context, its manageability must be determined, i.e., how it should be dispensed, who should be the recipients, what effects it will have on an organization and even the market in general.

Technology
The initial challenge of knowledge management is synthesizing the information processing technologies in your organization and the unique abilities of the people to allow the organization to survive and thrive on knowledge. Knowledge management is not just knowing everything the organization knows. It is creating a synthesis between the people and the information to the point that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Bellinger (2004) offered that “The value of knowledge management relates directly to the effectiveness with which the managed knowledge enables the members of the organization to deal with today's situations and effectively envision and create their future (p. 1).”

The technology dimension of Knowledge Management, while important, is not essentially where knowledge actually resides. Technology can accumulate information, sort information, communicate information, and do so at high rates of speed. But knowledge resides inside human relationships and experiences. So, the challenge becomes one of building a culture that values face-to-face human relationships, reflection, and sharing. Organizations must challenge themselves to engage as many people as possible in the experiences, such that the organization learns to the depth and breadth that will sustain its growth in knowledge and ultimately its survival.

The individual
The challenge of the individual versus the team in knowledge sharing is created by the very culture and context in which it resides. In the western culture mindset Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner wrote “our education system is based on accumulating knowledge individually” (Goldsmith, Morgan, & Ogg, 2004, p. 14). This form of defining working culture is antithetical to a social structure that believes and embraces knowledge sharing and management without having to accrue personal gain. This challenge presents itself in many ways within corporate America because those who prescribe to it limit our ability to work more effectively together and share intellectual capital.

According to Grant (1996), the major challenge of knowledge management is in the process of capture and integration. In order to be successful, an organization must first concentrate on changing the mindset of its followers. The goal in using knowledge management is to aid them in the performance of their duties. Knowledge management challenges that were once focused on financial aspects are now facing the challenges of measuring human and intellectual value too. It can assisted by human language technology (Maybury, missing retrieval date). The technology can include but is not limited to "retrieval, extraction, summarization, and presentation/generation" (Maybury, missing retrieval date, p. 1). Not only is this technology meant to enhance access, but also to enhance interactions between people by improving knowledge awareness.

Culture
Knowledge Management, likewise, must have practical application to organizations – human organizations. The tools, databases, and technological aids are not themselves Knowledge Management. Knowledge and learning come from people and their relationships with each other and their experiences. The real challenge, therefore, comes in the form of developing a culture that embraces learning, sharing, changing, and improving, all through the collective intelligence and knowledge of people.

Kluge et al. (2001) tell us that their examination of a variety of companies revealed that many of them had attempted to implement knowledge management efforts but failed due to the lack of an appropriate cultural context that would “create and nurture reciprocal trust, openness and cooperation” (p. 25). They maintain that employees must be enthused with a thirst for knowledge and that many failures in this arena are the result of top down efforts to “push” information. Push approaches can often be identified by management's reference to information technology initiatives.

Flexibility & change
“…The availability of information is changing everything…and it is creating the greatest mass empowerment of all time” (Wheatley, 2004, p. 53). In this world of constant change, the organizations that learn how to be smart, quick, agile, and responsive are the ones that will survive long into the future. Organizations, though, are not machines. They are made up of people who need time to experience, reflect, and learn. Likewise, knowledge is not something that can be quantified and it is far more complex in that it is derived out of human relationships and experiences. This, then becomes the greatest challenge of Knowledge Management – the organization's ability to embrace, grow, and attend to the human dimension (Wheatley, 2004).

Shared leadership
One of the greatest challenges of knowledge management is the assurance that knowledge will prevail by ensuring that knowledge workers are given “voice” – sometimes referred to as shared leadership. Goldsmith (2004) defines knowledge workers “as people who know more about what they are doing than their managers do [and adds that] while many knowledge workers have years of education and experience in training for their positions, they often have little training in how to effectively influence upper management” (Goldsmith, et al., 2004, p. 19).

Goldsmith et al. (2004) quoting Peter Drucker provides an explanation for this lack of influence when he says, “The great majority of people tend to focus downward. They are occupied with efforts rather than results” (p. 19). In reality this concept might be taken further – suggesting that the answer lies not in focusing on efforts or results, but rather focusing on shared purpose. The responsibility for having “voice” within an organization does not necessarily rest with a perception of permission from upper management but with courageous followership. Ira Challef (2003), author of The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To & For Our Leaders, states that shared leadership has its limits when given a top-down approach. Instead, he purports that both the follower and leader share a common purpose and that the “loyalty of each is to the purpose and to helping each other stay true to that purpose” (Chaleff, 2003, p. 17) – something that can only be done holistically, by giving knowledge workers “voice” within the organization.

Building blocks
Garvin (1993) points to five building blocks that reflect some solid challenges to knowledge management:

 * 1) Systematic problem solving.
 * 2) Experimentation with new approaches.
 * 3) Learning from one's own experience and past history.
 * 4) Learning from the experiences and best practices of others.
 * 5) Transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.

These five building blocks need to function in harmony and balance with one another. Effective knowledge management can be increased as systems and procedures are developed to address and improve each of these five foundational stones. The challenge facing the organization comes in maintaining the dynamic nature of the interrelationship of these five areas of knowledge management. Garvin (1993) supplies three suggestions for addressing the first building block of systematic problem solving. First is reliance on the scientific method (hypothesis testing) rather than on guesswork when it comes to problem solving. Second, decision making should be based on data, not assumptions (fact-based management). And third, use simple statistical tools (charts, diagrams) to organize and communicate data.

Overcoming knowledge management challenges
Knowledge management can improve an organization's ability to achieve development results. In its most basic form, knowledge management is all about converting the available raw data into understandable information. This information is then placed in a reusable repository for the benefit of any future need based on similar kinds of experiences. Knowledge management contributes towards streamlining the ideas, problems, projects and deployment in light of organizational goals driving towards productivity.

Goldsmith, Morgan, & Ogg (2004) suggest the idea "of knowledge management is fundamentally flawed-it involves neither knowledge nor management and therefore cannot be expected to succeed" (p. 39). Rather, they suggest that the real focus should be upon “the intellectual capital” that workers possess. This creates a wide misunderstanding of the purpose and context of sharing that intellectual capital. Far beyond facts stored in memories of individuals, groups, or computers, intellectual capital deals with applied expertise gained through understanding and experience. Effron continues suggesting by illustration that best practices for hiring new workers may not be knowledge or facts easily gathered and stored. Often, a talented human resources or other organizational leader may possess significant skills and insights not learnable via a book or computer file. He suggests that learning from such individuals can be an important learned and shared intellectual capital.

Case studies & workplace examples
One of the greatest challenges in organizing KM is desire and motivation. Without people within the company or organization having the motivation or vision for sharing information, they shut down. Without the vision of why KM is important, people are not willing to give. Another problem comes from the organization itself. If it is not willing to change it turns on those that try to initiate it. We have been trained that knowledge is power. To give up that power is antithetical to building our own importance verses the best interests of the organization. I experienced this from the only company that I was released from. I was invited to succeed elsewhere because I had too much initiative. In trying to share knowledge I initiated change within a company that did not want to change. In the end, change did not occur, KM was challenged, and I had to find a new job.

Within the Center for Life Calling and Leadership, there is a disconnect between knowledge acquisition (research and curriculum development) and its dissemination with the organization as a whole. Leadership has decided that there must be intentionality between knowledge acquisition and its dissemination. This is being accomplished through personnel assigned to develop programming designed to integrate Life Calling into academia and student life. Life Calling knowledge has been embraced conceptually, but the next stage is to integrate this knowledge throughout the entire organization to positively affect the lives of individual students, whether it is in the classroom or in residence life.

At Medical Protective, the reality of virtual teams in the organization posed a significant threat in the area of shared learning/knowledge management. In order to overcome this obstacle, information managers and organizational leaders determined that the use of technology would have to be leveraged to bridge the gap in connecting these teams to each other. Simple technologies such as shared network drives were used to maintain training material and commonly used forms and documents to keep the teams aligned. After mastering the simple technologies, Medical Protective then moved to more complex systems such as imaged filing programs, virtual telephony services, and web-based mainframes, so that teams were connected, despite their logistical distances.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Learning Theories/Knowledge Management: Processes

According to Rumizen (2002), "knowledge management is a systematic process by which knowledge needed for an organisation to succeed is created, captured, shared and leveraged." For this reason, knowledge management involves leadership establishing processes, also defined as activities or initiatives, to help organizations adapt to an ever changing environment (National Electronic Library for Health, 2005). Successful knowledge management depends on processes that enhance individual and organizational ability, motivations, and opportunities to learn, gain knowledge, and perform in a manner that delivers positive business results. Organizational processes that focus on these three attributes will lead to an effective “management” of knowledge (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003). Rewards and other motivational incentives are keys to the knowledge management process. Argote, et al. (2003) have noted that members of an organization are unlikely to share insights and ideas within the organization if they are not rewarded for the knowledge sharing. They point to the impact of social rewards as being just as important as monetary rewards. A strong social culture within an organization can promote the transfer of knowledge. Within the midst of this strong culture there is a development of a desire for social cohesion and genuine spirit of reciprocity. Argote, et al. point to a less altruistic and a more egocentric motivation for knowledge sharing within an organization with a strong social culture. Often the employee is willing to transfer knowledge in order to protect their own social standing. Demonstrating uncooperative behavior or attitudes will damage one’s reputation and so to afford this social and professional risk, knowledge sharing increases.

In the global and technological environment, the challenge exists to move from an organizational mindset that suggests that knowledge is for the few on the top echelon to an understanding that knowledge once held by the few is available to the masses. Goldsmith, Morgan, and Ogg (2004) contend, "The old days of "continous improvement" seem as leisurely as a picnic from the past. In this chaotic and complex twenty-first century, the pace of evolution has entered warp speed, and those who can't learn, adapt, and change from moment to moment simply won't survive" (p. 54). The need to rethink the process of knowledge management even in mega-organizations is of paramount importance. Goldsmith, et al. (2004) further contend, "We're trying to manage something-knowledge-that is inherently invisible, incapable of being quantified, and borne in relationships, not statistics" (p. 56). The time to understand knowledge management from a multi-directional perspective has come. Goldsmith, et al. says, "Our most important work is to pay serious attention to what we always want to ignore: the Italic texthuman dimension" (p. 57).

According to Nonaka (1998), "Understanding knowledge creation as a process of making tacit knowledge explicit--a matter of metaphors, analogies, and models--has direct implications for how a company designs its organization and defines managerial roles and responsibilities within it" (p. 36). Nanaka states that this is accomplished within Japanese companies through redundancy, "the conscious overlapping of company information, business activities, and managerial responsibilities" (p. 36). As a process, redundancy can become a medium that assists in the management of knowledge within an organization. Though to many western managers redundancy may conjure up mental images of "unnecessary duplication and waste" (p. 36), it can assist in the area of employee expectancy, alleviating unnecessary assumptions and confusion.

Creating opportunities for individuals to create, retain, and transfer knowledge can be managed through employee development processes. For example, placing individuals in situations where they can gain new experiences, or share learning from a prior experience will enable knowledge management. Many companies have processes to intentionally move personnel across the organization (across units, regions, functions, etc.) for the purpose of transferring knowledge as well as building learning capability and agility within the individuals. Ability, while innate, can also be increased through effective training processes and experiences. Training in analogical reasoning, for example, will increase an individual’s ability to transfer knowledge between tasks, assignments, or reporting units, thereby spreading knowledge further across the organization.

Recognition and reward processes and systems can also influence the knowledge management process. Members of an organization, who are recognized and rewarded for knowledge transfer are more likely to engage in such sharing of knowledge, especially if it is integrated into the performance management process and will influence their standing or reputation in a positive manner.

Drawing upon Wheatley’s (1999) reference to a system as “a set of processes that are made visible in temporary structures” (p. 23), we might deduce that organizational learning - as a system process, is manifested or made known by the visible temporary structures of behavioral patterns, rhythms, and relationships. In other words, the organization is a “living system” –one that uniquely takes form through “fundamentally similar conditions” that other organizations encounter: "...self...shared meaning...[and] networks of relationships...[resulting in] information [that] is noticed, interpreted, [and] transformed” (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1999, p. 81) into knowledge.  Thus, according to Wheatley (2004), knowledge management cannot be proficiently processed independent of  “creat[ive] work that is meaningful, leaders that are trustworthy, and organizations that foster everyone’s contribution and support by giving the staff time to think and reflect together” (Goldsmith, et al., 2004, p. 63).

The shear volume of information today also presents a process problem. Wheatley describes what creates enormous possibilities for KM,“world wide web has created an environment that is transparent, volatile, sensitive to the least disturbance, and choked with rumors, misinformation, truths, and passions” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004, p. 53). The list includes the belief that organizations are a machine, only materials and numbers are real, you can only manage what you can measure, and technology is the best solution. The efforts are ultimately an attempt to make knowledge manageable. Something one can keep track of, keep inventory of, and procure for sale to another who wants it. To manage something you must have some kind of an understanding of it and an ability to control it to some degree. This reasoning leads to the list mentioned above by Wheatley as well as similar lists made by other KM leaders.

What facilitates KM? Wheatley’s list says that humans create knowledge, and it’s natural to create and share that knowledge, everyone is a knowledge worker, and people choose to share their knowledge. Another process issue is attaining or gathering knowledge. That knowledge exists throughout any given organization, but the ability to inventory or tap into that knowledge is difficult. Wheatley writes that “we must recognize that knowledge is everywhere in the organization, but we won’t have access to it until, and only when, we create work that is meaningful, leaders that are trustworthy, and organizations that foster everyone’s contribution and support by giving staff time to think and reflect together” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004, p. 63).

Effron (2004), asserts that given the definition of knowledge as “the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association”, it is “impossible to acquire “knowledge” without either experiencing something yourself or interacting with someone else who has” (p. 40). Knowledge Management is not synonymous with IT systems and processes. Rather knowledge resides in the experiences of people in different contexts. With regard to Knowledge Management, the aim of an organization is to work within business processes that create, and transfer knowledge throughout the organization. If knowledge is created and transferred via human experiences then these business processes must encompass an understanding of how people learn and transfer their knowledge; that is the business processes must emphasize person-to-person contact (Effron, 2004).

Examples of business processes that will lead to effective knowledge management are:

 * The setting of goals and objective – be realistic and recognize the limitations of data mining and information gathering. Make the increase of organizational knowledge a stated and specific goal for the all.
 * Employee retention – HR processes should focus on what it takes to retain employees who hold key knowledge. Provide opportunities that are developmental, have purpose, and have a high impact on business performance.  Compensate such employees above typical market rates.
 * Employee development processes – pairing experts (what some companies call “Oak Trees”) and apprentices provide opportunities for employees with differing levels of knowledge to work together and increase the organizational knowledge. These relationships allow for a true exchange of knowledge through a human relationship and experience.
 * Organized networking and annual conferences – these provide forums for face-to-face interaction and knowledge sharing and can lead to effective organizational knowledge management.
 * Accountability – line management, not just IT or HR, should be held accountable for knowledge management. They should be held accountable for management of the human resources and organizational knowledge.  They do this through the above business processes of employee development (experiences, developmental assignments, etc.).

In the process of KM there must be significant steps taken to eliminate any barriers that may get in the way of becoming or increasing the ability to be a learning organization. Cummings challenged our intentionality for to effectively help the processes of KM within an organization there must be intentional efforts to remove barriers that would inhibit ideas, talent, and money from getting to the point of best use (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004).

Managers and leaders play in important role in the success of knowledge management in their organization. James Robertson (2005) introduces ten key principles to ensure that information management activities are effective and successful. These focus on the organizational and cultural changes required to drive improvements forward. Those principles are:

 * Recognise (and manage) complexity
 * Focus on adoption
 * Deliver tangible & visible benefits
 * Prioritise according to business needs
 * Take a journey of a thousand steps
 * Provide strong leadership
 * Mitigate risks
 * Communicate extensively
 * Aim to deliver a seamless user experience
 * Choose the first project very carefully

The practical value of KM is in what it is able to impact, how it impacts, and how well it impacts. The line between KM and business is through the processes of business. KM's biggest impact on business may be in its ability to improve processes and their performance (Nichols, 2000). It is suggested that the changing of processes should take into consideration the role KM plays in this process. In turn, the information that is needed to make decisions to make changes must be identified and well as determining the effects those decisions will generate.

An organization that wishes to begin to use Knowledge Management must begin by specifying specific processes. These processes must be supported by technological resources and must facilitate the sharing of information about problems and solutions, improvement suggestions and information concerning best practices practiced by other organizations. Organizations that follow this plan will develop a framework that catalogues, uses and integrates the knowledge used by individuals as organizational knowledge for driving innovation and organizational change (Hyde & Mitchell, 2000).

Hyde and Mitchell (2000) offer six strategies for developing knowledge management processes within organizations:

 * 1) Define a KM business case.  What levels of knowledge and innovation will your agency need to stay ahead of your "environment" and be "competitive?"  (Do not start until you can prove you need it.)
 * 2) Baseline your intellectual capital. Knowledge is an intangible asset, but human capital is not--measure current and projected workforce capabilities, your HR investments, and expected return on investment. (Get HR involved from the outset.)
 * 3) Make sure your senior executives "get it." Collaboration and knowledge sharing begin at the top, not at the bottom. Top management has to see how KM will affect performance and why it is critical for innovation and change. (Make sure the top dogs are eating the same food.)
 * 4) Build KM from the bottom up and across. What's most important about any KM program or process is its ability to facilitate knowledge exchange among those individuals closest to the work, to the customers, and to the processes. KM must be an enabling process that captures both best practices and new ideas while promoting access.
 * 5) Balance external and internal. The value of your KM program is multiplied by its reach--it needs to connect to other agencies, customers, and stakeholders. (Think in terms of strategic alliances.)
 * 6) Think technology last and "chunk" your investments. What products will you need to support your first level of KM development (allocate 75 percent of your KM IT budget). Save 25 percent for building your technology strategy to support future KM phases or new investments. (Think in terms of weeks and avoid all long-term systems projects like the plague.) (p. 57)

Andrews and Delahaye (2000) found that factors at the individual level greatly influence knowledge processes. These included a person’s perceptions of approachability, credibility and trustworthiness, which directly influenced knowledge importing and knowledge sharing. Researchers discovered that scientists in a bio-medical consortium actively filtered knowledge importing by deciding whom they would ask for information, whom they would allow to give them input, and with whom they would share their own knowledge. They made decisions based upon what they felt their co-workers would do with the sensitive information. In each case the scientists made a judgment of co-workers as to their perceived trustworthiness.

Knowledge management’s importance in organizations affects their competitiveness and the bottom line in significant ways. Ogg and Cummings suggest, “There are three important things that can be leveraged in large companies to help take advantage of being a big organization, money, talent, and ideas” (Goldsmith, et al. (2004), p. 103). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital increasingly grows as the critical of these three components that organizations need to align and use as leverage to foster improvement from within against stiffening competition. The processes necessary to align and create increased leverage against the competition. Larger organizations can struggle to overcome significant barriers to discover, organize, and utilize what Ogg and Cummings call a marketplace of ideas (cf. p. 104). Overcoming barriers and hindrances to sharing and utilizing great ideas takes discipline and cultural values in which new ideas are readily shared, honored, and implemented.

Ogg and Cummings further suggest that fostering an organizational culture that values new ideas necessitates that meetings become places where ideas are shared, appreciated, and implemented in timely fashion. Additionally, infrastructure must connect people in trust relationship with a context where meaningful ideas are shared. Technology and data storage are inadequate to facilitate this kind of transference of new ideas.

Case studies & workplace examples
The process of managing knowledge is somewhat a misnomer. More often than not, what a company really desires to do is capture knowledge because managed knowledge is subject to mismanagement. One very simple process for capturing knowledge is known as “the wisdom of the crowds” - as was written about by James Surowiecki in a book by the same title. A more recent example of this is the famous television show, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, where a contestant is given a single opportunity to ask the audience for their knowledgeable response to a particular question. Historically, this method of knowledge capture has been relegated to situations where factual resolve is sought (i.e., a single right answer). There are two important points to keep in mind when considering the use of this methodology: 1) individuals making up the crowd do not usually communicate with one another concerning their individual wisdom of the subject matter and 2) “the group's guess will not be better than that of every single person in the group each time” (http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/excerpt.html).

Information technology provides a number of tools that facilitate the free sharing of knowledge among co-workers and team members. Web collaboration tools that allow team members to collaborate on line through the posting of relevant background information, calendars, task lists an similar documents are particularly powerful. They are particularly useful when members use them to post work in progress documents for review and use by others. The versioning feature of many of these allows all the participants to review documents, make comments and provide feedback. Chat and discussion areas also permit the free flow of knowledge and information.

Microsoft's Sharepoint Server has been particularly valuable when used with firms working on major planning projects. Participants scattered around the world are able to quickly provide and share knowledge with one another in a fashion that would be cumbersome in any other fashion.

Some years ago, Caterpillar Inc. recognized that a wealth of knowledge was contained in the minds of engineers throughout the company who knew what had been successful and what designs and practices had not been. This knowledge was frequently not available to engineers in other parts of the far flung company who would unknowingly use designs that had been less than successful elsewhere. In addition, much of the knowledge was perishable as it was lost to the company when engineers retired.

Simultaneously, Caterpillar was implementing a system which would record, categorize, analyze and report failure trends by application, type of equipment, subsystem, component and type of failure from data gleaned from all warranty claims and all dealer service orders worldwide in near real time. The original aim was to speed the recognition of required product improvements to increase customer satisfaction and reduce warranty cost. It was quickly realized that providing this type of information to engineers designing new products would permit them to understand the historical failure modes of all parts, components and systems and, therefore, to avoid repeating previous mistakes.

The Center for Life Calling and Leadership is a learning organization within the larger organization of Indiana Wesleyan University (IWU). The Center seeks to learn how to best meet the needs of IWU students, both students with pre-declared majors and leadership majors/minors. The process (Developmental Model)that has been developed through research focuses on each year of the college student's educational process. There are six stages on the Life Calling Developmental Model: (1) The Pre-Stage issue is entrance transition; (2) The first year stage is exploration; (3) The second year stage is connection; (4) The third year stage is interaction; (5) The fourth year stage is anticipation; (6) Following their exit from college, graduates now begin to implement what has been learned during the college experience in their Post-Stage life. According to Millard (2004), it was projected that students would progress developmentally throughout their educational process and increase in self-directedness. Millard states:

One of the more eye-opening findings we have made is that this is not necessarily true. We found self-directedness increasing until the end of the 3rd year and then suddenly, with the anticipation and apprehension of life after college, there was a distinct regression from self- directedness and a greater demand for supportive intervention. The 4th year stage may be just as difficult as the 1st year stage. We also suspect that as we continue to develop this model that we are going to see multiple regressions correlated to various issues that occur throughout the college experience. Instead of gradually disengaging in our life calling support at our Center, we may find it a case of multiple refocusing of emphases and efforts (p. 4).


text:
Learning Theories/Knowledge Management: Leadership

Leadership ultimately is an interaction or relationship between the leader and the led. Knowledge Management (KM), as Wheatley points out, is a process that requires that investment and relationship to exist on a deeper level of motivation (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004). To effectively understand how to lead learning organizations the leader must understand what Garvin (1993) calls the three M’s. They are management, meaning, and measurement. By effectively leading in these categories a leader can learn to manage KM. Ultimately the three M’s are created and managed by ideas. Cummings challenged this by saying, “Leaders are idea brokers that enable the exchange of ideas to benefit their organization” (Cummings, Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2004). This exchange of ideas is part of meaning and measurement, the ability to procure new knowledge and then integrate that into the framework of the organization. The overall mission of a leader in the world of KM is to learn how to guide the internal marketplace within their organization. By doing this, the leader creates an organization that is a learning team dedicated to meaning, management, and measurement within KM.

The understanding of the three M’s will be largely determined by one perspective on organizational learning. Ortenblad (2002) suggests two basic perspectives that might lead in two distinct paths for leaders to consider. A futuristic perspective would conceptualize individuals as agents of learning for the organization; the organization provides a positive learning culture and climate for the individual; the knowledge gained by the individual is stored outside the individual in the organizational memory. Ortenblad suggests that a second perspective, an interpretive perspective, is becoming a dominant paradigm. Reality is seen as a subjective phenomenon; knowledge is viewed as context dependent; learning is a social practice, taking place between individuals; knowledge cannot be stored because it is determined by the situation.

To understand the meaning, management and measurement of learning organizations is a difficult task. The interpretive perspective places this task into the shifting sands of relativism and contextualization. Relativism makes measurement almost impossible because the norms are in constant flux. If the situation or context is the determining factor for knowledge, then learning is not based on the foundation of truth but on the environment. The implications of such a perspective are widespread including business ethics and cultural morality. The bandwagon of this popular paradigm should not be jumped upon too quickly.

The most important thing leadership can do in ensuring the success of knowledge management in their organization is selecting a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO). The CKO is the organization's expert on knowledge management and integration. According to Bontis (2002), CKOs are responsible for:

 * 1) Promoting stability in an ever-changing environment.
 * 2) Provide the timely delivery of products/services.
 * 3) Fostering organizational synergy by sharing resources and knowledge.
 * 4) Ensure the feasibility of specialization.

In addition, in order for CKOs to be effective, they must understand how to implement technology is an enabler for capturing, storing, and sharing knowledge, as well as aligning it with the values of the organization. Therefore, leadership should find candidates for CKO who are enthusiastic, idealist, creative, resourceful.

As a leadership skill, knowledge, according to Northouse (2004), "is inextricably related to the application and implementation of problem-solving skills in organizations" (p. 43). Mumford, Zaccaro, and Harding, et al. (2000), as cited by Northouse, state that knowledge impacts a leaders ability to determine complex organizational problems and to develop a solution. "Knowledge refers to the accumulation of information and the mental structures used to organize that information" (p. 43). This type of mental structure is called a schema, simply a mental diagram used to assimilate information into useable knowledge. Once a leader formulates information into knowledge, individuals are more inclined to follow based the leaders expertise. In previous eras, information/knowledge was considered a power base. According to Greenberg and Baron (2003), information power has become a lesser power due to technology and the availability of information to more people than ever before. In the past, information was reserved for those who held top positions, using information/knowledge for their benefit and allowing that information to be distributed only on a need-to-know basis, or even in a biased manner. In a culture saturated with information/knowledge, it is imperative that leaders use information/knowledge for the benefit of followers and the organization as a whole and not for power accumulation.

As a result of their research, Kluge et al. (2001) tell us that knowledge management presents unique leadership challenges. “From a leadership perspective, knowledge management has been viewed more like a craft and less like a science. Because of the very nature of knowledge, it is difficult for managers to predict what measures can really improve performance, and how to encourage and guide knowledge flows within an organization (p. 191). The chief executive, they say, must assume the role of promoting knowledge management throughout the enterprise. He or she must set the tone for the organization and demonstrate that knowledge, and its management, are taken seriously. In fact, according to some experts, if the senior leadership of an organization is not able to adopt and embrace a KM program, it is far more likely to fail than to succeed (Rosenburg, 2004). Having a dynamic personality or being the ‘charismatic leader’ is no longer a viable leadership model for executives to rely upon. Leaders within organizations must be able to learn and demonstrate competency. Those people being led desire a person who not only frames a compelling vision, but also can provide evidence that they have the knowledge and insight from which the vision is derived. In short, knowledge and learning have become part and parcel to ‘leadership’.

Bolt and Brassard (2004) articulate this point by identifying those characteristics of effective CEOs that support their learning and knowledge management. Here are some of the most important attributes that they identified (Bolt & Brassard, 2004, pp. 162-163):

 * They have a desire to learn: They integrate learning in all that they do and try to pull knowledge from every situation.
 * They have an open and curious mind: They seek out people who think differently or might provide a different perspective.
 * They show humility: They are willing, in fact eager, to learn from their mistakes. They do not have to ‘know it all’ and respect people who share that value.
 * They make their learning public: Feedback is important. Taking the time to publicly seek input and letting people know that they are working on learning more about an issue or topic.
 * They tolerate risk: Mistakes are important as learning tools. People need to learn from their mistakes, but must not shy away from risk for fear of making a mistake. They also understand that learning absolutely needs to occur at a faster rate than the rate of change within the organization.
 * They walk the talk: They pay it more than lip service; they fund and dedicate resources to learning, through good times and bad.

McCollum (1998) states that there are three fundamental tasks that leaders face: “creating strategies to adapt [the] organization to the environment, building a structure that is capable of implementing [the organization’s] strategy, and building the capacity of the members of [the] organization” (Spears, 1998, p. 338). It does not take a stretch of the imagination to understand that each of these fundamental tasks requires ongoing organizational learning in an environment of knowledge management - both explicit and tacit, and best understood through the modes operandi of shared communication. But where and how do leaders begin facing these tasks? Heil & Alepin (2004) state that it will require most leaders to “rethink their leadership...in order to lead authentically...not only [for the purpose of] build[ing] more effective, more human organizations, but...to enrich the lives of every person…” (Goldsmith, 2004, pp. 158-159).

According to John Kotter there are eight steps to transform an organization through leadership. These eight steps are: "1. Establish a sense of urgency, 2. Form a powerful guiding coalition, 3. Create a vision, 4. Communicate the vision, 5.Empower others to act on the vision, 6. Plan and create short-term wins, 7. Consolidate improvements and produce still more change, 8. Institutionalize new approaches" (Kotter, 2003)

Leadership and Knowledge Management (KM) intermingle the vision and influence of leadership with the available knowledge base within the organization. When effective leadership elicits and draws upon the myriads of experience, wisdom, understanding, and knowledge inherent in the work force in synergistic fashion creating shared vision, the organization sits like a space shuttle ready begging for launch. In the context of a rapidly changing world and an increasingly competitive marketplace, successful organizations of today and tomorrow must harness and align all its potential and knowledge. Therefore, Goldsmith, et al. (2004) suggest, "Nothing is more important to the success of knowledge management initiative than the support of leaders and the visibility of KM role models. Generally speaking, the higher up in the organization these role models are the better" (p. 9). 243).

Yogesh Malgotra says, "Knowledge Management refers to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival and competence against discontinuous environmental change. Essentially it embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings." http://www.brint.org/managementfirst.html (Retrieved May 13, 2006). Mark Effron (Goldsmith, Morgan, & Ogg, 2004) contends that “the sheer concept of knowledge management is fundamentally flawed -- it involves neither knowledge nor management and therefore cannot be expected to succeed” (p. 39). Instead, he suggests we must “begin to focus on helping organizations truly share the intellectual capital their workers possess” (p. 39).

But does leadership always have to come from the top down? Patricia Wallington (2002) poses the thought that leadership skills can be found at all levels of an organization. Lower level employees can—and should—exhibit leadership to influence those at the top of the organization. Before doing so, however, the individual should consider how to be most effective when attempting to lead from below.

Wallington (2002) lays out the following steps in determining the right time and place to lead from below:

 * 1) Cultural Permission – Assess what your corporate culture supports or allows.
 * 2) Prepare the Way – Develop a relationship with key senior leaders.
 * 3) Pick Your Spots – Not every issue is a candidate for leadership from below.
 * 4) Judge Not – Try not to be judgmental about leadership.
 * 5) Grow Your Own Leadership – While you work on influencing the senior leadership of your company, set the stage for your own development.

How might one successfully lead and draw upon the un-mined gold of intellectual capital and harness it to pull the wagon of the organization to a new day? Morgan (Goldsmith, Morgan, & Ogg, 2004) believes that the past leadership assets of superior knowledge and technical expertise alone cannot create a flourishing organization. Technology’s explosion and overabundance of information availability creates demand for a better type of leadership. Competitive advantage today means sharper and finer lines of work, teamwork, and “investment in human capital” (p. 136). Beyond effective use of human resources, we must draw the best from the best leaders in our organizations. Retraining successful leaders from yesterday becomes a key challenge to leadership in a learning organization concerned with KM. Morgan suggests that developing human potential and capital must earn the trust of leaders through integrity and building meaningful relationships. Their “forward looking vision” (p. 138) must be compelling and inspiring. This integrity and vision must be disseminated and carried throughout the organizational culture and embodied by top executives. In addition, the organization and leaders must attract and retain top talent and deploy them for greatest return. In further consideration of leadership's intense involvement in successful KM, Goldsmith, et al. (2004) also suggests, "If you can't get leaders on board, your KM initiative may be doomed before it gets started. On the other hand, when leaders at all levels (supervisors, managers, and executives) use the KM system, they encourage others to do the same" (p. 243). As suggested by the very word, leaders need to take the lead in practicing appropriate and successful KM.

Case studies & workplace examples
Leading KM is a daunting task, especially when you are leading from the middle. Only a few lead at the top in organizations, most of us find ourselves leading from the middle. We influence those above us and below us in any way we can. One of the ways I have experienced leading KM from the middle is by providing the first step and championing the partnership for KM within the organization. As a leader over my department I initiated KM within it first. After championing the initial effort we then offered positive help to other departments. Without anything to gain we invested into other's creating bridges that one day will come back around. By leading with what was in our hands, we invested into the whole of the organization without immediate personal benefit.

As the Center for Life Calling and Leadership seeks to propagate itself within the university (IWU) as a whole, one of the difficulties that remains is effectively promoting and integrating Life Calling knowledge within other university departments and helping them utilize that knowledge to better meet the needs of their respective students. Each year, the Center hosts a workshop targeting other departments in an attempt to educate and facilitate open discussion that equips these individuals (faculty and staff) with tools to assist students and/or the understanding of our services and how that becomes applicable to their ability to assist students in their educational journey. Presently, the Center is in an exploratory phase seeking ways to better integrate Life Calling knowledge more effectively into other university departments.

Empowerment of employees plays a critical role in leading knowledge management in an organization. Employees must know that they have a personal responsibility for contributing to the overall knowledge of the organization. As leader of a team of 25 customer service associates, we took the image of empowerment to heart and allowed the team to participate in owning, refining, and implementing their own knowledge management database. Although I, as leader, laid the initial framework and the objective for the project, the team was given ownership of their own piece of the tool, to ensure that they could contribute and share their knowledge with the entire team. By allowing the team to play an integral role in the establishment of our knowledge database, they were more comfortable in using it and taking ownership of updating it as processes changed along the way.


text:
Learning Theories/Knowledge Management: Change

Knowledge that is acquired, stored, and dispensed without having any affect on the organization should, perhaps, be called ‘trivia’. For knowledge to actually be meaningful it needs to induce change. This is not to imply that all change is derived from knowledge (any person who has ever been associated with an organization knows better than that), but it is to say that knowledge, when acted upon can induce change that can have consequential impact on an organization. Perhaps, then, the real legacy of any ‘knowledge management’ program or policy is the significance of the changes these initiatives bring about.

It was Charles Darwin who said, "It's not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change". Understanding this phrase forces organizations in any industry to look closely at the way change can impact their business. Any large-scale change, however, requires the organization to confront the issue of culture. This can be a daunting task. Culture is that invisible and often complex system of beliefs and practices that determines how people act in organizations is fraught with difficulty.

Timothy Galpin (1996) gave 10 cultural components to consider when implementing change:

 * Rules and Policies : Eliminate rules and policies that hinder the change and create new ones that reinforce the desired way of operating. Develop and document new SOP’s.

 * Goals and Measurement : Develop goals and measurements that reinforce the desired changes.

 * Customs and Norms : Replace old ways of doing things that reinforce the old ways with new customs and norms. E.g. replace written reports with face-to-face meetings.

 * Training : Again replace training that reinforces the old way of doing things with new training. Develop experiential training that provides real time, hands on experiences with new processes and procedures.

 * Ceremonies and Events : Put in place ceremonies and events that reinforce the new ways. Recognise individual and team contributions to making the changes work.

 * Management Behaviours : Publicly recognise and reward managers who change by linking promotion and pay to the desired behaviours. Do not promote or pay increases to managers who do not come on board.

 * Rewards and Recognition : Make rewards specific to the change goals that have been set. Ensure that the performance management system recognises and rewards the desired ways of operating and does not simply reinforce the old ways. For example, a performance management system that measures only individual behaviour will undermine any attempts to inculcate a culture of teamwork.

 * Communications : Deliver communications in new ways to show commitment to change. Use multiple channels to deliver consistent messages at all stages during the transition, before, during and after.

 * Physical environment : Make sure the physical environment reflects the change. If knowledge and information sharing is your goal, get people out of offices and into open, shared areas. If you want them to talk to their customers, create ‘virtual’ offices so that your people are encouraged to work outside the office with customers.

 * Organizational structure : Make sure that structure reinforces the operational changes. Combine overlapping divisions; re-organize around customers as opposed to functions.

Garvin (1993) defines a learning organization as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transforming knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (p. 80). If change is not the result of creating, gaining, and sharing knowledge then “learning” is fairly meaningless. Innovation is merely creative imagination unless it results in a transformation of reality. Yukl (2002) states, "Organizational learning involves acquiring new knowledge, either by discovering it or by imitating the best practices of others" (p. 295). Yukl (2002) goes on to add that organizational learning describes organizations that utilize acquired knowledge to become more effective. This effectiveness can be realized through the change process resulting from acquired knowledge. What is important for an organization is the ability to implement the acquired knowledge into progressive change rather than acquire knowledge and never use it. Yukl again states, "New knowledge is of little value unless it is used. Some organizations are very successful at discovering knowledge, but fail to apply it effectively" (p. 295). One of the ways that effective application can be realized is through competition. As organizations are competitively driven to reach new heights (goals), they are forced to explore, discover, and change based on the value of the knowledge acquired.

Goldsmith, et al. (2004) suggest, "Changing the way people work...is tough work that is not to be taken lightly. Research in organizational dynamics, diffusion of innovation, and change suggest that failure to pay attention to prevailing attitudes, beliefs, and practices, even when the benefits of a new way of doing things are totally obvious to all, invites disappointment if not disaster" (p. 242). Therefore, close attention needs to be on the people affected by the introduction of change which occurs when knowledge management is introduced or revised. Goldsmith, et al. (2004) contend, "If your investment in knowledge management does not include a corresponding investment in change management, you may be throwing more than your financial investment down a rat hole" (p. 251). Therefore, human capital, change, and knowledge are a three legged stool which must be used together to be successful.

Powell (2004) correctly asserts that for knowledge to induce change, it must be acted upon. Who acts on knowledge? People do, of course. This question and answer may seem silly, but the truth of the matter is that for knowledge management to be effective in bringing about change, people need to be engaged in the knowledge management process. If we accept that people are integral to the knowledge management process we must also recognize that there will be confusion and consternation about any process an organization introduces to manage knowledge. This is not because people will dislike the concept of knowledge management, rather because people will resist change in all of the various forms it takes. Rosenburg (2004) points out that introducing a knowledge management program without paying attention to the “prevailing attitudes, beliefs, and practices”, is recipe for failure, even when everyone fully appreciates the benefits of such a program. He further recommends that any organization considering implementing a knowledge management program consider first the 12 “change management factors” (Rosenberg, 2004, p. 243). These are:

 * 1) Leadership and role models: If the organizational leaders support the knowledge management program, it has a much greater chance of success.
 * 2) Success stories: By sharing success stories, buy-in can occur more easily.
 * 3) Consequences and incentives: in essence, this is the cost-benefit analysis all of us go through before we adopt any change. If knowledge management makes life easier and people have incentives to engage in the knowledge management processes, they are more likely to welcome the change.
 * 4) Value proposition:  Prepare specific and defendable propositions as to how knowledge management will add lasting value to all parts of the organization.  Rosenburg (2004) adds that the greater the specificity, the more likely buy-in will occur.
 * 5) . Level of participation: Engage those who will use the knowledge management system to be a part of the design.
 * 6) . Hassle: People must understand that though a knowledge management program may be a hassle, it will ultimately save them time and effort.
 * 7) Impossibility:  Be prepared for the nay-sayers. Understand that their concerns may be legitimate and may come from previous experience where similar initiatives have failed.  Engage these people to the extent possible.
 * 8) Priorities:  A knowledge management system will be far more likely to succeed if it is perceived as being not only a high priority, but also as having a high likelihood of success.
 * 9) Fear of technology:  Even though most people in today’s workforce are computer savvy to some degree, there are still many people who fear new technology.  Deploy new technology used in the knowledge management system long before people have to start using it.  Give people time to learn and adapt to the new technology.
 * 10) Sink-in time:  Allow for some time to let the concept of knowledge management to ‘sink-in’.  Avoid ‘springing’ a new knowledge management system on people.  Communicate early and often and consider offering one-on-one demonstrations.
 * 11) Training:  The most vital element of managing the change associated with implementing any knowledge management program is the training program.  Focusing on the user experience and providing ample real-life scenarios will increase the effectiveness of the training.
 * 12) Ongoing support:  Change management often begins and ends with the roll-out.  Do not let this happen!  Provide ongoing support so that people feel as though they have ready-resource when it comes to training, technical support, or other knowledge management related topics.

As stated above, if we accept that people are integral to the effectiveness of the knowledge any organization possesses, then we must also accept that people play an equally important role in the knowledge management process. If organizations are capable of navigating the 12 issues outlined above, they are far more likely to implement a knowledge management program that acquire, store, and dispense knowledge that can have a beneficial impact on the enterprise as a whole.

Communities of practice
According to Julian (2005), a Community of Practice (CoP) uses "systemic efforts to plan, implement, and evaluate a broad range of interventions designed to address community problems." The term community refers to a group of people having a common interest. CoPs were first used by researchers with common interests to help negotiate and reflect on practices relating to their particular field (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Most importantly, CoPs help members create change through collaboration, reflection, and the sharing of lessons learned.

Storytelling
Powell (2004) states that organizations “still think too much in terms of changing people’s behaviors and not enough in terms of tapping into the potential people have for doing better, doing more, and getting smarter” (Goldsmith, et al., p. 232). What has been misconstrued is the fact that people willingly change and tap into their potential when the opportunity arises. This is especially true when an organization fosters engagement. One simple and very powerful but often overlooked method of fostering engagement is through storytelling. Storytelling in an organizational setting – similar to mankind’s historical storytelling reference, is comprised of “myths, legends and sagas, represent[ing] a collective and institutional memory system which informally passes on key knowledge and communicates important values, beliefs and assumptions” (Vance, 1991, p. 52). In its truest form, storytelling is the organizational culture incarnate. Thus, organizational storytelling is an excellent means to quickly enculturate new employees but is also just as effective used as a training means for other employees. Storytelling is a vicarious means of learning that allows for “relating the stories of the experiences of others…mak[ing] much of the power of experienced-based learning available to the inexperienced learner” (p. 54). Storytelling’s power comes from the fact that it utilizes both cognitive and affective means to deliver the message – a message that is “easy to remember” and capable to expand “multidimensional meaning….even in the most confusing [and complex] situation[s]” (Joensuu & Ilmola, 2005, p. 1).

Location of expertise
There must be a current change or shift in how we understand or what method we use in knowledge management. All too often we try and regulate one or a few to manage knowledge bases. Or we limit our understanding of knowledge management to merely posting information in a stagnant arena without dialogue, explanation, or contextual reference for deeper understanding. There must be a change in development to perceive knowledge management as an ‘everyone’ issue. An organization should develop a think-tank within itself that holds itself accountable and polices the very knowledge that is shared. Organizations should also develop multiple platforms of interaction where knowledge is shared through technology, written materials, and interaction within cyberspace and face to face. Effron states that “knowledge cannot be stored in a database, only information can”(Goldsmith, Morgan, & Ogg, 2004,p. 42). So this identifies the process of communicating information, the missing element is the communal aspect and context of the knowledge. Adding these variables creates a forum and environment for knowledge management.

The interest in knowledge management has been growing for years. Now the field continues to change and grow as new uses are always being developed. According to an article by David Skyrme, some of these changes are focused on globalization and a firms ability to bring together the knowledge from across the globe instead of reinventing information. Knowledge is power and money. Being able to personalize the service provided to customers is money in the bank. In the area(s) of restructuring and downsizing, valuable knowledge can be lost with the ending of employment, or be expensive to replace. The sharing of best practices allows companies to take information from the success of others and develop their own best practices. Lastly, the ability to apply knowledge allows companies to develop new and better products thereby making more money.

Fuglsang and Sundbo (2005) suggest that there are three modes of innovation for organizations that cross the continuum from deterministic to free choice. The first is an entrepreneurial value-based method where change is initiated by individual’s actions and drive to create business. The second is a technology-based functional mode in which the development of technology drives innovation. The third is a strategic reflexive mode in which innovation results from interaction process of individuals and the organization’s set of common values and goals. The strategic reflexive mode of innovation is the most effective mode for change and innovation in knowledge management. This mode values the exchange of information within the organization and filters this exchange through the core values of the organization. Change in an organization is potentially destructive to the organization, so it is imperative that the changes to both the organization and to knowledge management within the organization be regulated by the process of knowledge management itself and the values of the organization itself.

Knowledge management will drive the need for new information systems. Most existing systems have been developed to serve the needs of operating personnel and management. New, knowledge management systems must be capable of making comparisons, analyzing trends and presenting both historical and current knowledge. More importantly, they must permit the users to transform data into knowledge by analyzing and understanding patterns and drawing conclusions. These systems must do more than present data, they must permit the decisions makers to understand the information. (Thierauf, 1999)

Daft (2005) provides an eight-stage model of planned organizational change developed by John P. Kotter. Careful attention must be given to each stage because a critical mistake and any stage could cause the process to fail. Stage One – establish a sense of urgency that change is really needed. Stage Two – form a powerful guiding coalition. Stage Three – develop a compelling vision and strategy. Stage Four – communicate the vision widely. Stage Five – empower the employees to act on the vision. Stage Six – generate short-term wins. Stage Seven – consolidate gains and create greater change. And Stage Eight – Institutionalize changes in the organizational culture.

Case studies & workplace examples
Every set of case studies deserves one that fails. In failure we learn, grow, and keep believing in change. In an effort to initiate KM within two organizations we initiated change. The two organizations were a para-church organization that ministered to a college campus and a local-church college ministry. The change initiative was created to combine our ministries by creating a bridge from the para-church site to multiple local church experiences. Through this we would exercise KM by uniting our efforts and experiences with college students. The local-church moved their meeting times and changed focus to pointing students towards the mid-week experience at the campus and the local church on the weekend. The bridges were made, but over time they didn't last. What was learned through the process will enable others to adapt and learn when the next opportunity arises for change. These change efforts will stimulate new methods that enable KM to be possible.

What ultimate organizational goals would knowledge management and change affect?

Change dominates the focus of much of knowledge management, organizational behavior, and organizational learning. Producing and developing increasingly efficient and effective processes, products, or output of any kind is a driving force in the competitive marketplace of business and nonprofit. Knowledge management and change uniquely and intentionally must synchronize together for organizational improvement.

Burke (1992) proposes that the kind of change necessary to qualify as organizational development must happen at the cultural level. It is not enough to modestly change functions, or organize and communicate better. Real change in organization does not happen until the culture changes. " For change in an organization to be OD it must (1) respond to an actual and perceived need for change on the part of the client, (2) involve the client in the planning and implementation of the change, and (3) lead to change in the organization's culture" (p. 8-9). Hence, the most effective change takes place at the core value and organizational culture levels. It is the norms and values which underlie basic assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors. Changing these underlying values is the ultimate goal of knowledge management and organizational development. This goes beyond “fixing a problem or improving a procedure” … it means, “That some significant aspect of an organization’s culture will never be the same” (p. 9). “It might be a change in the organization’s management style, requiring new forms of exercising authority, which in turn would lead to different conformity patterns, since new norms would be established, especially in decision making” (p. 9).

Examples of such a cultural change can be found within the automotive industry, as manufacturers move toward a team-based culture. For real change to take place companies and unions have had to work toward a new vision of beliefs (about the motivation and skill of employees), values (where all employee input is valued), and behaviors (those that recognize contributions and accept responsibilities). It has not been enough to simply write new contracts and procedures. Rather, the leaders on both the union and management sides have had to work collaboratively to make significant changes in our underlying culture. Such changes have led to improvements in safety, quality, and productivity.

In the author’s local organization, a church, a cultural shift took place following a yearlong ReFocus process. Organization-wide input into strengths, weaknesses, and needed challenges played into significant shifts in decision-making, leadership, and responsibility taking among members. A new board was organized to create shared vision and mutual support from varied ministry leaders who took responsibility to plan, brainstorm, and collaborate on special projects. In addition, cell groups were organized to deepen relationship development, expand caregiving to more leaders and members of our church. These cell groups function with measurable autonomy from the larger group and are able to address unique needs and growth points in the members of the individual groups. The Center for Life Calling and Leadership seeks to gain knowledge through internal and external research that will assist students in the Life Calling exploration process. As the Center continues to be on the cutting edge, the research conducted is not based on existing models, but unfolds through observation, internal and external. Once the knowledge has been articulated, changes can be made based on the knowledge gained and its effective integration into the Life Calling program and into the classroom (LDR 150, Life Calling, Work and Leadership). Acquired knowledge also assists in the validation process for the Center. When new ventures are explored, and the implementation stage has waned, a period of validation is experienced to ensure that invested resources are meeting or exceeding expectations. If the new venture fails to meet expectations, expressed or implied, change is likely to become the new organizational expectation.

David Skyrme Associates (2003) have collected a database of case studies that show examples of organizations that have achieved significant benefits through knowledge management. Some examples are:

 * BP - by introducing virtual teamworking using videconferencing have speeded up the solution of critical operation problems
 * Hoffman La Roche - through its Right First Time programme has reduced the cost and time to achieve regulatory approvals for new drugs.
 * Dow Chemical - by focusing on the active management of its patent portfolio have generated over $125 million in revenues from licensing and other ways of exploiting their intangible assets.
 * Texas Instruments - by sharing best practice between its semiconductor fabrication plants saved the equivalent of investing in a new plant.
 * Skandia Assurance - by developing new measures of intellectual capital and goaling their managers on increasing its value have grown revenues much faster than their industry average.
 * Hewlett-Packard - by sharing expertise already in the company, but not known to their development teams, now bring new products to market much faster than before.