stop model - knowledge sharing

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