Knowing-Doing Gap Jeffrey Pfeffer Robert Sutton)

differences came from management systems and practices more than from the quality of the peopleoveremphasis on "tangible", specific, programmatic aspects of what companies do and not on philosophy as to why they act in a particular mannerup to 70% of workplace training is informal (tacit knowledge)meanwhile knowledge one possessed is not always used appropriately and efficientlyconsultants often do not understand work being documentedwhereas: "... knowledge is embedded in these shared spaces, when it is then acquired through one's own experience or reflections on the experience of the others... knowledge is intangibleno follow upused automatically without thoughtthreat-rigidity effectIMPLICIT and when not surfaced difficult to argue against with data or logicstart a new organisationno information no based for learningpersistinter-dependency"Can't do what ten people tell me to do, so I guess I'll remain the same"persistPygmalion effect: self-full filing prophecyKnowing-Doing Gap Jeffrey Pfeffer & Robert Sutton)There needs to be enough people sufficient to cause momentum ... there are some fundamental beliefs you have to share with a group of people"why" in terms of philosophy and general guidance more important than "how" in terms of detailed practices , behaviours and techniquesdoing including explaining and teachingno doing without mistakes: what happens then? drive out fearWhy some organizations ....... are consistently able to turn knowledge into action, and do so even as they grow and absorb new people and even organizations. ... others composed of intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working, nice people fail to translate their knowledge about organizational performance into actionas if there was some kind of brain vacuum in those firms that sucks out the wisdom and insight out of their peopleWhy knowing-doing gap more important than distinction between knowledge and ignorancetoo many activities and organizations involved in acquiring and disseminating information to plausibly maintain the "performance secrets"research demonstrates that success of an intervention depends largely on implementation of what is already knownHow does KM contribute to knowing-doing gap?knowledge sth to be acquired, measured and distributed, sth tangible such as patentsKM conceptualizes knowledge as sth tangible and explicit that is distinct from philosophy and valuesCompetitive advantage comes from doing sth others cannot doif you and your colleagues learn from your actions and behavior then there will not be much of a knowing-doing gap because you will be knowing on the basis of your doing.When talk substitutes for actionplanning, meetings and reports "mistaken" for actionstaking a lot is mistaken for doing a lotcomplex is seen as better than simpleeasy to understand is not the same as easy to implementcommon sense not that commonmaking decision does => making changeif it was said => it must be true and must be happeningmanagers are those who talk; others doevaluated and promoted based on ...how smart (negative) they soundtalk a lot, interrupt and are criticaluse leaders who know and do the workfoster culture of simplicity (straightforward language & ideas)use language that is action-orienteddo not accept excuse; reframe the questionsWhen memory is a substitute for thinkingPRECEDENTsocial proofcompetitors use the sameconsistencypressure for consistency as opposite to confusion, indecisiveness, two-facedpast actions justified as reasonableNEED FOR COGNITIVE CLOSUREwhen under pressure, fatigued difficult to process information, closure is valued by significant otherspeople tend to cling to what they knowresist new thingsPERMANENCE TENDENCYseek closureto freeze on past knowledgeavoid evidence which dis-confirms what is believedIMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLESTRONG COMPANY IDENTITY may preclude alternative viewsSHARP INTERRUPTION WITH THE PASTSOMETHING OCCURS WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO GO BACKCLEAR; FEASIBLE NEW WAYS are communicated and implementedleaders who take the time to understand the work that people do and take actions to reduce status differenceThis mind map was downloaded from www.biggerplate.comFind more mind maps in our libraryFollow us on TwitterFind us on FacebookWhen fear prevents acting on knowledgefear-based "Theory of motivation" keep them on their toes, otherwise they will just take it easy precludes possibility that because they want organisation to perform well, because they want to help others or because their work is interestingpeople fearful of even delivering bad newsnew ideas stifled as potential indicator of something being wrongfear brings to the forefront the short term considerationspeople cannot see anything elsepeople focused on self preservation rather than collective good (two guys and a tiger)praise, pay and promote people who deliver bad news to their bossestreat failure to act as the only true failure; punish inaction, not unsuccessful actionsencourage leaders to talk about failures (specially what they have learned)encourage open communicationbanish people - especially leaders - who humiliate othersdig a lot of holes, the only smart thing is knowing when to stop diggingno learning without error => we should celebrate failures2nd, 3rd chancesIN HARD TIMESprovide people with as much prediction, understanding, control and comprehensionWhen measurement obstructs good judgementuse of oversimplified/incorrect model of human behaviour which became widely shared + capital markets pressurethe most aggressive minds in an organisation rarely focus on measurement systems (let others do it), whilst the trouble with this attitude is that measurement lies at the very heart of both vision and strategy. Most executives today work with inherited measurement systems that distort their business strategiesBlind adherence to making the budget and reliance exclusively on financial measures leads to all kinds of gamesBSCOK in theorygetting ready for the futureshould measure what is crucial for performancein practicetoo complex with too many separate measureshighly subjective in its implementationprecise metrics often miss important but difficult-to-quantify elementshuman beings can keep only about seven things in their heads at any one timea company that is not in control has far more measures because they are not changing the basic management systems that are in placeend-of-process measures lead to ...pressure & a feel of being tightly controlledpeople not measured/controlled on things that really matter and things they can directly affectmeasurement practices measures focused more on in-processes and means to ends and less on end-of-process or final outcomes => facilitates learningglobal measurements, less focused on individual performance more on CSF to organisational successreflect the business model, culture and philosophy of the firmmeasurements result from a mindful ONGOING process of learning from experiencerelatively few measures focusing on critical issues and processes at the expense of comprehensiveness and complexityat its best a measurement closes the loop, auditing and assessing what the organisation is doing => ensuring that firm does what it knows When internal competition turns friends into enemiesstrong & unexamined beliefs without surfacing underlying assumptions for a check upconfusing management (primarily dealing with novel approaches) with routine tasks racing analogy used misrepresents facts of life (interdependence)managers often "winners" of internal raceszero sum games, forced distribution, recognition of individuals, internal contestsindividualistic and competitive culture interferes with building of strong organisational cultureinformation hoarding encouraged copying "externals" less damaging to own EGO,but to copy an "internal" might signal that somebody is betterwhen insecure unwilling to learn and retreat to old ways derogating the noveltieshire,reward and retain people in part based on their ability and willingness to work cooperatively with othersfire, demote and punish people who act only in their individual short term interestsfocus people attention on defeating competition not each otheravoid performance measurement and compensation which creates internal competitionheave measures that assess cooperationindividual success partly dependent on success of peersleaders lead with collaboration, information sharing and helpinguse power and authority to get people and units to share information, to learn from each other
122 1