Knowing-Doing Gap Jeffrey Pfeffer Robert Sutton)
226
1
This is a mind map about book The Knowing-Doing Gap : How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action
The Knowing-Doing Gap Book Overview:
The so-called knowledge advantage doesn't exist—even though companies pour billions of dollars into training programs, consultants, and executive education. Although knowledge is important, most companies know, or can readily know, the same things. Moreover, even as companies talk about the importance of learning, intellectual capital, and knowledge management, they frequently fail to take the important next step of turning knowledge into action. This book confronts the paradox of companies that know too much and do too little by showing the barriers to turning knowledge into action and how some companies successfully surmount these obstacles.
Firms that turn knowledge into action avoid the “smart talk trap.” Executive should use plans, analysis, meetings, and presentations to inspire deeds, not as substitutes for doing anything. Companies that act on their knowledge also eliminate fear, abolish destructive internal competition, measures what matters, and promote leaders who understand the work people actually do.
Using examples from dozens of firms, The Knowing-Doing Gap shows how some companies overcome the disconnect between knowledge and action, why others try but fail, and how still others avoid the problem in the first place.
The Knowing-Doing Gap Book Overview:
The so-called knowledge advantage doesn't exist—even though companies pour billions of dollars into training programs, consultants, and executive education. Although knowledge is important, most companies know, or can readily know, the same things. Moreover, even as companies talk about the importance of learning, intellectual capital, and knowledge management, they frequently fail to take the important next step of turning knowledge into action. This book confronts the paradox of companies that know too much and do too little by showing the barriers to turning knowledge into action and how some companies successfully surmount these obstacles.
Firms that turn knowledge into action avoid the “smart talk trap.” Executive should use plans, analysis, meetings, and presentations to inspire deeds, not as substitutes for doing anything. Companies that act on their knowledge also eliminate fear, abolish destructive internal competition, measures what matters, and promote leaders who understand the work people actually do.
Using examples from dozens of firms, The Knowing-Doing Gap shows how some companies overcome the disconnect between knowledge and action, why others try but fail, and how still others avoid the problem in the first place.
Tags:
Similar Mind Maps
Outline


... 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 action
as if there was some kind of brain vacuum in those firms that sucks out the wisdom and insight out of their people


too 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 known


knowledge sth to be acquired, measured and distributed, sth tangible such as patents



KM conceptualizes knowledge as sth tangible and explicit that is distinct from philosophy and values


if 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.

planning, meetings and reports "mistaken" for actions
taking a lot is mistaken for doing a lot
complex is seen as better than simple
easy to understand is not the same as easy to implement
common sense not that common
making decision does => making change

if it was said => it must be true and must be happening
managers are those who talk; others do
evaluated and promoted based on ...
how smart (negative) they sound
talk a lot, interrupt and are critical
use leaders who know and do the work
foster culture of simplicity (straightforward language & ideas)
use language that is action-oriented
do not accept excuse; reframe the questions

PRECEDENT

social proof
competitors use the same
consistency
pressure for consistency as opposite to confusion, indecisiveness, two-faced
past actions justified as reasonable
NEED FOR COGNITIVE CLOSURE
when under pressure, fatigued difficult to process information, closure is valued by significant others

people tend to cling to what they know
resist new things
PERMANENCE TENDENCY
seek closure
to freeze on past knowledge
avoid evidence which dis-confirms what is believed
IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLE

STRONG COMPANY IDENTITY
may preclude alternative views

SHARP INTERRUPTION WITH THE PAST
SOMETHING OCCURS WHICH MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO GO BACK
CLEAR; FEASIBLE NEW WAYS are communicated and implemented
leaders who take the time to understand the work that people do and take actions to reduce status difference

Find more mind maps in our library
Follow us on Twitter
Find us on Facebook

fear-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 interesting
people fearful of even delivering bad news

new ideas stifled as potential indicator of something being wrong
fear brings to the forefront the short term considerations
people cannot see anything else
people focused on self preservation rather than collective good (two guys and a tiger)
praise, pay and promote people who deliver bad news to their bosses
treat failure to act as the only true failure; punish inaction, not unsuccessful actions
encourage leaders to talk about failures (specially what they have learned)
encourage open communication
banish people - especially leaders - who humiliate others
dig a lot of holes, the only smart thing is knowing when to stop digging
no learning without error => we should celebrate failures
2nd, 3rd chances
IN HARD TIMES
provide people with as much prediction, understanding, control and comprehension


use of oversimplified/incorrect model of human behaviour which became widely shared + capital markets pressure

the 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 strategies
Blind adherence to making the budget and reliance exclusively on financial measures leads to all kinds of games
BSC
OK in theory
getting ready for the future
should measure what is crucial for performance
in practice
too complex with too many separate measures
highly subjective in its implementation
precise metrics often miss important but difficult-to-quantify elements
human beings can keep only about seven things in their heads at any one time
a company that is not in control has far more measures because they are not changing the basic management systems that are in place
end-of-process measures lead to ...
pressure & a feel of being tightly controlled
people not measured/controlled on things that really matter and things they can directly affect
measurement practices

measures focused more on in-processes and means to ends and less on end-of-process or final outcomes => facilitates learning
global measurements, less focused on individual performance more on CSF to organisational success
reflect the business model, culture and philosophy of the firm
measurements result from a mindful ONGOING process of learning from experience
relatively few measures focusing on critical issues and processes at the expense of comprehensiveness and complexity
at its best a measurement closes the loop, auditing and assessing what the organisation is doing => ensuring that firm does what it knows


strong & unexamined beliefs without surfacing underlying assumptions for a check up

confusing management (primarily dealing with novel approaches) with routine tasks
racing analogy used misrepresents facts of life (interdependence)
managers often "winners" of internal races
zero sum games, forced distribution, recognition of individuals, internal contests
individualistic and competitive culture interferes with building of strong organisational culture
information hoarding encouraged
copying "externals" less damaging to own EGO,but to copy an "internal" might signal that somebody is better
when insecure unwilling to learn and retreat to old ways derogating the novelties
hire,reward and retain people in part based on their ability and willingness to work cooperatively with others
fire, demote and punish people who act only in their individual short term interests
focus people attention on defeating competition not each other
avoid performance measurement and compensation which creates internal competition
heave measures that assess cooperation
individual success partly dependent on success of peers
leaders lead with collaboration, information sharing and helping
use power and authority to get people and units to share information, to learn from each other

"why" in terms of philosophy and general guidance more important than "how" in terms of detailed practices , behaviours and techniques
doing including explaining and teaching
no doing without mistakes: what happens then? drive out fear