The Seven Social Challenges of Developing a Knowledge Sharing Culture over an Intranet

Feature

posted 1 Nov 1998 in Volume 2 Issue 3

The Seven Social Challenges of Developing a Knowledge Sharing Culture over an Intranet

Simply installing an Intranet may not significantly increase knowledge sharing because social interaction is driven by desire rather than capability. Here, Mick Cope explores the concept of personality types and reveals the importance of the internal social system.

Consider where you live, and think about how often you take the time to share knowledge with your neighbours. Even worse, how many neighbours do you actually talk to? Now imagine that the local telephone company has installed a free intranet for the street. Does this mean that you will talk to Mrs Kite down the road, or will you ask Mr Downer for advice on how to fix the television?

For a social organisation that has a highly interactive style, there is a good chance that an intranet will add value to the sharing process. However, if the organisation has a passive style where little interaction takes place between the people, then installing an intranet might not add any value to the sharing process. Hence, the adoption of intranet technology might not significantly increase knowledge sharing because social interaction is driven by desire rather than capability.

This article offers the view that organizations must map and understand how their internal social system operates before contemplating an investment in an intranet. This growth in awareness can be facilitated by using a diagnostic model which considers the following:-

The extent to which people freely interact with each other can be mapped against a five-step learning ladder

The extent to which a range of social factors amplify or attenuate the interactive process

Once these two factors are mapped against each other, the resulting profile can be used to gauge the extent to which the intranet will facilitate the sharing of knowledge within the organisation.

The Learning Ladder

The first stage is to consider the organisation's style and understand the different ways that people interact. At the lowest level on the ladder there is little interaction between people, and hence there is little learning or knowledge being shared within the business. At the highest level, people interact in a proactive and open way, and actively seek to share knowledge with each other. The five levels are:

Inactive - Passive behaviour where little interest is shown in the idea of connecting with other people.

Reactive - Where learning occurs as something that is 'done to' rather than 'done by' an individual.

Active - A desire to interact, but within the limited boundaries set by the individual, team or organisation.

Proactive - A desire to learn and to achieve this by moving outside of the more traditional boundaries and relationships.

Interactive - Individuals that view the social network as part of the knowledge creation process and not just a medium for its transfer.

The proposition is that organizations who operate at the lower level of the ladder will gain little from any investment in an intranet. Those that operate at the upper level of the ladder will actively use, effectively discover, diffuse and deliver knowledge to the market.

The seven social challenges

Once the variability of connection is understood, it can be used to measure how people behave in a range of social settings.

The seven social factors used in this model have been selected because they have a close relationship with the knowledge sharing process. In particular it can be argued that they play a significant role in the attenuation or amplification of knowledge as it flows through the business. The seven factors are:

Communities of Interest

Skill Searching

Casual Conversations

Positics

Trust

Serendipity

Noise Overload

These seven factors are briefly described below, along with an indication of the type of language or behaviour that might be associated with each of the levels on the learning ladder.

1. Communities of interest

People typically form communities of interest to share ideas or learn from one another. They consist of individuals who carry out similar roles, share similar competencies, or have a shared goal. Like the sales people that meet together every morning for coffee, it may be that they have little in common but for this one key thing they share an interest that they are keen to talk about, specifically how to identify new sales leads.

However, although communities can facilitate the free flow of knowledge, in many cases they can act as a barrier. The close tribalism that emerges from this type of behaviour can in many cases stovepipe knowledge, such that is cannot be shared beyond the local group.

Inactive people will accept the problem, and might even see it as beneficial, however interactive people will use the community as a knowledge spring and will take learning and apply it in the wider domain.

INTERACTIVE
'I take ideas I get from my group and then try to apply them in other situations within the business.'
PROACTIVE
'I actively scan the wall boards for groups that operate in my area of interest.'
ACTIVE
'I keep an eye out for groups that might be of interest.'
REACTIVE
'I will go to a group meeting if invited.'
INACTIVE
'I get more than enough information from managers on how to do my job.'

2. Skill Searching

Within any organisation, one commercial differentiator is the synergy that arises as people pool and share skills, examples being the product manager that needs advice on how to market a new product, or the line manager that consults a personnel officer about an impeding industrial tribunal. The question is, how do people undertake the search process that leads them to the various pools of expertise?

In an organisation that does not have an intranet, the tendency is to either use the existing formal relationships or draw upon the shadow network of personal contacts. The $64,000 question is what happens to people's behaviour when the intranet is installed? Do they continue to take a passive approach and import skills from their existing pool of resource, or are they encouraged to use the increased connectivity to scan and search the business for other people that might be able to offer new skills to their area of interest?

INTERACTIVE
'Let me check to see if this has happened anywhere else.'
PROACTIVE
'I wonder what would happen if I spoke to...'
ACTIVE
'Where can I get someone to help me with this.'
REACTIVE
'OK-let me know where he is and I'll see if he can help me.'
INACTIVE
'I'll call my friend up to see if he can help.'

3. Casual conversations

Imagine a busy office at a photocopier repair centre. As the engineering field supervisor walks out of her office, she notices a few people hanging around the canteen talking. Often the reaction to this might be to tell them to get along and do their work, or in some cases to take disciplinary action. Although it might well be that these people were wasting time, it might also be that they were sharing valuable knowledge among themselves - discussing some of the irritating problems that seem to be cropping up but they have been unable to resolve individually. In this case knowledge is being shared but in a way that the senior managers do not get sight of and have little control over.

The possible downside is that it is highly linked to the personality of the individuals and the way in which they choose to connect with other people. So whilst the inactive person will happily confine their circle of conversation to those people that they know well and feel comfortable with, the interactive person will actively use social interaction as a tool to disseminate and gather new knowledge.

INTERACTIVE
'I allocate time in my diary to meet new people. I do web searches to find new ideas.'
PROACTIVE
'I make a point of saying hello to new people that I see in the office.'
ACTIVE
'I always keep an eye out for new people in the building and find out where they are from.'
REACTIVE
'If someone talks to me I will always share ideas with them.'
INACTIVE
'I just stick to talking with people I know regarding any office issues.'

4. Positics

The extent to which knowledge can flow through an organisation is likely to be dependent on the role and strength of the internal political system.

Politics are a natural part of life, and seeking to eliminate them would be as practical as trying to eliminate world poverty. However, what is important is the way that people tackle and manage the political process. The passive or inactive person will simply tolerate and accept that it is a way of life and might let it dominate the knowledge sharing process. However, the interactive person will actively seek to use the political process, but in a positive way. Although this might be viewed as machiavellian in nature, this is not so. It just requires a positive and open reframing of the understanding of politics; to consciously reframe the action and think of 'Positics', the 'positive application of politics.'

INTERACTIVE
'Power comes from my personal capability- not the knowledge that I hold.'
PROACTIVE
'I’ll make use of the old pals network.'
ACTIVE
'If you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.'
REACTIVE
'OK, I'll send the report over if you arrange for my post to be covered next week.'
INACTIVE
'I own- therefore I do what I want with it.'

5. Trust

As organizations reduce in size and grow in complexity, so the dependency on social interaction between the players becomes increasingly significant. Knowledge will only be transported across an organisation if people have the necessary level of trust within and across the various teams.

The difficulty surfaces in trying determine what criteria might be used to measure the degree of trust that exists because of the subjective nature of the topic area. However, certain core factors might be used, and this is shown in the TRUST model:

Truthful - extent to which integrity, honesty and truthfulness is maintained

Responsive - openness, mental accessibility, or the willingness to share ideas and information freely

Uniform - degree of consistency, reliability and predictability that is contained within the relationship.

Safe - loyalty, benevolence, or the willingness to protect, support and encourage each other

Trained - competence, technical knowledge and interpersonal skills

The proposition is that trust based relationships are not built upon chance or happenstance. They are built upon desire, intent and action. Trust must be viewed as a verb not a noun, and as such people must be encouraged to work at developing open, honest relationships in the same way that they develop other operational capabilities. Whilst the inactive person will view trust as something that just happens, the interactive person will understand the important role that trust plays, and will actively ensure that they build trust based relationship across the organisation.

INTERACTIVE
'I make the assumption that everyone can be trusted and wait to be proved wrong.'
PROACTIVE
'I try to make a habit of giving people space to take risks.'
ACTIVE
'I trust people when I see evidence that they can be trustworthy.'
REACTIVE
'Why should I trust you if you won't trust me.'
INACTIVE
'I'm here to do my job - not to trust people.'

6. Serendipity

It is the unexpected surprises that emerge as people interact and share ideas that really delivers the benefit of a knowledge sharing culture. This is the idea of serendipity or the gift for making a fortunate discovery accidentally.

Stories abound of the various inventions that have emerged from the process of serendipity; Goodyear's accidental discovery of the vulcanisation process for rubber; or Fleming's accidental discovery of penicillin. All of these originated because someone (apparently) happened to be in the right place at the right time, and was observant enough to notice something out of the ordinary.

So a discovery based on serendipity might be seen as the fruit of a seed sown by chance in fertile ground. So how can an organisation create the fertile ground to allow for surprises that are based on serendipity? The list is probably endless but the importance rests in helping individuals to use their network of relationships thereby increasing the possibility of random serendipitous opportunities.

The inactive person will be blinkered and unable to see the potential possibilities that can arise from accidental interaction with other people. The interactive person sees the rich source of knowledge that exists in the random interaction that occurs within a social system.

INTERACTIVE
'I've got an idea for a wind up radio- all I need is someone to help me raise some capital.'
PROACTIVE
'I'll put a note on the office board to see if anyone else has a use for this idea.'
ACTIVE
'I'll make sure that I read the journals every month to keep in touch with the market.'
REACTIVE
'So, tell me again- what can I do with this steam as soon as it comes out of the kettle.'
INACTIVE
'I see no icebergs.' (Capt. Smith - The Titanic).

7. Noise Overload

One danger with the introduction of a technology based messaging system is that the level of knowledge can remain constant, but the flow of data can increase. The easy access to the 'reply all' button on the e-mail system means that spurious, messages get sent across the network that have little or no value for the recipient.

This tends to happen less with a paper based system - for the simple fact that increased distribution means that people have to photocopy more paper, walk to the post room or lick more envelopes.

Consider the traditional team based structure which has a hierarchical framework.

As information flows through the system it is gated, since much of the information will go via the line manager. In an intranet based system, everyone has instant access to everyone else, and within a small network the level of connectivity between the knowledge nodes can double overnight.

Hence, in considering how an intranet will impact upon knowledge sharing within the business, the organisation must understand the extent to which increased connectivity might actually attenuate the flow of knowledge.

INTERACTIVE
'I actively use a message classification system to manage who should receive information from me.'
PROACTIVE
'I indicate the priority of the content within the title of the message.'
ACTIVE
'I copy out most papers but hold the ones that might not be of interest to people.'
REACTIVE
'I copy important papers to people that ask for them.
INACTIVE
'I copy all my papers to everyone just in case.'

In an organisation where people will happily send out masses of data to all and sundry, there is a real chance that noise overload will emerge. However, in an interactive organisation, people will take personal responsibility for data transmission and will always ask three questions:

Does the recipient want this information ?

How can I flag up the purpose, content and importance of the message in the title?

Can I reduce the amount of data being sent without corrupting the core message?

Taking such an approach will both reduce the risk of noise overload and dramatically reduce the system costs associated with data transmission and storage within the intranet.

Diagnostic Model

Taking both the levels on the learning ladder and the behaviour maps for each social factor, it becomes possible to build a soft correlation between the two areas. For each of the seven social factors, the degree of positive interaction can be charted on a matrix.

Consider the organisation that maps itself on the upper rungs of the learning ladder seen in figure 3.

Figure 3
In this company there is every possibility that the introduction of intranet technology will enhance the flow of knowledge. However, for the organisation that is mapped against the lower rungs, then there is a real chance that the adoption of the intranet will flounder, and what might be a significant capital investment will deliver little pay back.

The diagnostic model should be used in two ways. Firstly to map the status of the social behaviour within the organisation, and so understand the potential impact that an intranet will have on its capability to share knowledge.

Secondly, it can be used as a tool to facilitate dialogue and create discussion. Helping people to talk about things that are not normally considered to be discussible can start the journey to fixing the problem. By simply making it OK to talk about the level of trust, closed communities and biased political systems will in all likelihood take the organisation up a notch on the learning ladder.

Conclusion

As a platform for sharing knowledge, the intranet can be a powerful tool. However, it can be dangerous to believe that technology alone 'will' deliver increased knowledge flow. It can never do this in isolation because ultimately learning is a human activity, and so will always need human involvement and ownership.

The creation of organisational knowledge is about people, connectivity and the interaction and synthesis that arises from the sharing process. As such, knowledge sharing must be understood from a social perspective as well as a technological one.

Mick Cope is a BT Masters Degree programme manager. The article is based on a number of ideas offered in his latest book - 'Leading the Organisation to Learn, the ten levers for putting Knowledge and Learning to work'. Mick Cope can be contacted at: mickcope@btinternet.co.uk

Subscribers can receive a 10% discount off the full price, £19.99. To order a copy, please phone 01704 508 080, or if you would like to order bulk copies, phone Kate Jenkins on 0171 447 2235