Enabling Organisational Learning Through Knowledge Sharing

… or Why it is Good to First Lay the Egg(s), then Let the Hen(s) ”Happen” …

… Or Start with the Seeds, then Let the Plants Grow …

Eggs and Hens are funny things. As the saying goes (”Who comes first, the chicken (or hen), or the egg?”), we do not quite know which one is first. This is probably because there is no first, or last, in the circle (or cycle) of life. All goes into everything else and then comes right out of it.

Yet, there is a certain sequence in terms of some entities preceding others, and others following on them. This sequence is not exactly time-bound as all the entities that are part of a particular circle can be experienced simultaneously at any one time as they are then. Still, they can be influenced, too, which would affect the ones after and before them, and the whole circle (or cycle), and thus the integrated experience of that cycle, at any one time.

You are probably wondering, what is all that about? Well, as I’ve already mentioned in the title of this post, it is about Organisational Learning and Knowledge Sharing, in fact, about enabling, or just influencing, the former through the latter. We can think of knowledge sharing as eggs laid in the organisation (strategically, or not so much). We can also think of it as seeds that you plant here and there, strategically, or not so much. Then the result would be chickens, some of which may be hens which would lay more eggs. To follow the other allegory, the result would be plants which would yield yet more seeds. The chickens, hens, or plants can be seen as the dynamics of learning. To think of organisations, then they can be seen as the dynamics of organisational learning.

There will always be eggs, and seeds which yield chickens and plants. Sometimes, though, we can enable, or just influence the sort of eggs, or the type of seeds, and thus enable, or just influence, the chickens and plants. In the same way, through knowledge sharing, we can enable, or just influence, organisational learning.

Why enabling, or just influencing? Because Organisational Learning, and learning, per se, can not be prescribed, only conditions for it to truly unfold (as it would) can be created. … In other words, you can not tell people to learn. Everything which goes in and out in learning, in this case through people, you can not prescribe. Yet you can create conditions for it, you can enable certain set-ups, bring in components you can bring, then see what happens. Belief in what can happen is useful too, as is steering the course of the process according with your belief. In this though, you should be open to experiencing the process of collective knowing. Unless you do this, you would be switched off from the collective learning process.

Perhaps this helps to understand:

And this:

(It is better to try to imagine what is seen, rather than just seeing it. Try.)

(And, in any case, these are just approximations.)

Because the cycles we are talking about here are not exactly, or not only, biological, then any such can also be enabled through the chickens, hens, and seeds. My argument here is that, for an effective organisational learning cycle, and a bigger dynamic system (i.e., complex adaptive system), to come into place, it is necessary to start with the eggs and then let the chickens and hens ”happen”. Or, start with the seeds and then let the plants grow. Should you start with the hens, or the plants, a cycle would be enabled, for sure, yet I would question whether this would be an effective organisational learning cycle (as explained above). Why? Because you would be diverging from what enables a complex adaptive system.

For example, imagine an organisation needs to define its strategic direction for the next five years. I guess it can do this in one of two ways:

1. It will put together a strategy from within the Office of the Executive Director, and then put this on the corporate website.

2. It will state the need for defining a strategic direction. Then it will organise a few workshops, run a few surveys, create conditions for people to talk to each other about this in the context of everything else, try to train people in complexity using the issue at hand. On the overall, it will enable a collective conversation, constantly facilitating that process. In result, the strategic direction will emerge collectively. Various lines of business (or divisions and units, thinking of the more rigid public sector formats) will continue working in this very discursive mode. It may never be written, yet it may not have to be. The organisation will continuously know its strategic direction and work accordingly.

I let you choose which one you prefer.

In the cycle of organisations, somebody is always sharing something with somebody else, and so somebody always gets to learn about something. You can not quite learn something unless somebody has shared something with you, i.e., some information, some announcement, some training, some gossip, some experience. Still, what is being shared, and among whom, has a great importance for what is being learnt, on what scale, and with what potential impact for the work of the organisation. Sharing creates conditions for people to construct their own learning, as individuals and as organisation. Once again, learning needs to take place in this, i.e., enabled, not enforced.

More on how exactly this can happen, i.e., what would be the more concrete descriptors of knowledge sharing, and of organisational learning, in later posts.

To side-track a little bit, following the ’egg -> chickens/seeds -> plants’ model, chickens will not always be hens, and plants will not ever be of one and the same type. This makes for an incredibly complex organisational learning picture. Yet, as it all things that live, this one’s bound to be that way, too, if it were to be that.

Systemic Transformations

 

Lifeworth published their annual review in February this year. I just read through it (awfully behind!!) and wanted to share the below:

“Humanity’s challenge is to find ways to improve human wellbeing within the limits of the Earth’s resources; to stop living as if we have another planet to go to” explains Jem Bendell. For this, Professor Grayson adds, “we need a new mindset for Corporate Sustainability to stimulate innovation and create radically new business models.”

http://www.lifeworth.net/

True, and as Jem Bendell would say – our current systems have to be transformed and not just reformed. Transformation is about a new culture, mindset, vision and emotion underlying what we do. A mere reform(ation) would just shift pieces around, and about, without changing our approach and what we, as human beings, and beings, see and can see through every day.

I am writing my CSR Certificate thesis on organisational learning and knowledge management approaches to the mainstreaming of business ethics … I can see now that, whatever we apply organisational learning and knowledge management to, it can be transformed. Organisational learning and knowledge management, especially if applied together, are a gateway for transformations. Putting organisational learning and knowledge management to the service of business ethics can ensure such transformations will contribute towards a world more just and more sustainable. It is only logical, no?

 

 

Enron – the lesson

I had a CSR (corporate social responsibility) class today (as part of a Certificate in CSR I am doing at the University of Geneva http://www.unige.ch/formcont/csr.html). We are covering business ethics this weekend. To start it all off, we watched ‘Enron: The smartest guys in the room’, a brilliant documentary loaded with facts, analyses of what and why it happened, as well as personal experiences and views of people who have been involved with the company. A wonderful couple of hours that I do recommend you to have if you get the chance.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413845/

There is probably no need to re-tell the Enron story which is very rich with many facts and twists to it. Just quickly:

Enron was founded by somebody called Ken Lay in the mid-eighties as an energy trading company. Ken Lay was a supporter of energy market deregulation on which principle he founded the business. The company began in the oil business after which it scoped out to working in electricity, Internet bandwidth and even ‘weather trading’. (…??) It was characterised by a culture of aggressiveness and risk-taking especially among the company’s traders.

The company’s approaches to accounting were highly questionable, such as ‘constructive accounting’ and/or hypothetical value accounting. This meant that Enron would write in a profit the minute it was estimated it would be there without it actually having gone to the books at all. This ”constructive accounting” ended up creating an illusion of a very profitable company – this (illusion) raised Enron’s share prices by 50% in one year, then by 90%. Meanwhile, this illusion was disguising the company’s continuous losses. It could not last forever because of that the rest of the market was (hopefully!) not an illusion as well – this led to Enron’s collapse in 2002.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1780075.stm
The question is: Why did this happen?

Off course loads has been written on this already and so there is no point in over-elaborating. Still, just simply, the issue is two-fold:

1. First and foremost, Enron was not alone. (this is often not mentioned)

Not only Enron top executives (the chairman, the CEO, the CFO, key traders, amongst others), but also most of Enron’s partners, allies and customers, such as banks (Citibank, Merill Lynch, amongst others), audit companies (Arthur Andersen), legal businesses and other partners - all big names – were willing to be in it together with Enron, driven by a single motive, money-making. (imagine that)

The Enron case is a fraud driven not just from within Enron, despite that Enron orchestrated it. A chain of abuse of shareholders’ money spread from Enron, Enron’s traders to outside of Enron. Top people at Enron and Enron’s partners were, with their actions, or lack of such, supporting the abuse. Committing fraud was so much part of the culture of Enron, as well as, to a smaller extent, those who were working with Enron, that this seemed like the ‘right’ thing to do to those who went along. Are they to be excused?

Certainly not, they are not to be excused. Enron’s case is an example of a people anc corporate cultures chain reaction. It shows how bad cultures can lead even good people to do bad things. We should all not forget this. Recognising the merits of a corporate culture, as well as questioning this, is important. We all have the power to think on our own feet and act in the way that is right.

2. Second and not less important is that the US energy market had been de-regulated. This is what made possible the trading of what would have otherwise been a public service - this possibility was abused by Enron’s traders in California. In other words, it was not just Enron and its partners. It was also the US government. Tough, hein? The whole system was creating an opportunity for Enron to do abuse.

Is this ethical? Can corporations be left to do whatever they want with customers and shareholders provided that they can do it? … The answer to this is no. Still, they may not stop because of this. We can never be sure. And so, it is important to pre-empt instances of abuse by corporations by creating systems for them to work in, systems which do not create opportunities for abuse.

 

The Enron case sure raises a number of ethical issues. After I watched the movie, I questioned my own approach to the way in which I ‘do business’ in any organisation and context. What are my motives? Are these ethical? In whatever I do, am I doing the right thing? Ethical, and ethics, is a construct that we need to understand and create ourselves.  I think it useful if we take a moment to ask these questions of ourselves and think about our approaches to what we do, if necessary. Business, any business, should not be driven by money but rather by the values that we invest in it. And, we, i.e., YOU, ME, decide what these values are.

Imagination is more important than knowledge

I like simple statements that communicate a lot of meaning. The other day, I thought about the distinction between these two:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Einstein)

We can know more than we can tell. (Polanyi)

There is actually no distinction. These two mean one and the same thing. They both refer to how people, if knowing what they know, can use this knowledge, for good or not so good things. Both of these refer to creativity that people are able to express through being in touch with their tacit knowledge.

People, all people, even the statisticians, the accountants, the programmers, i.e., all those who you would think are not creative (but this is just my presumption), ARE creative. YOU ARE CREATIVE. We are all able to connect experiences and memories in ways that are relevant to here and now. Some are doing it pretty well, others do not know how but are trying, others are just on different wavelenghts. The key is to see through complexity and reduce it to simplicity for everyone, or just those whom we are targeting, to understand.

Talking about creativity, I recently read in a book (”The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman) that in today’s increasing digitization and over-growing complexity of information, what truly matters, and increasingly so, is the ability to explain. ‘The Great Explainers’, I think this was the name of the chapter. Ability to see through the complexity and reduce it to simplicity. For me, this is creativity per se. Ability to pin it all down in a flash and then just let it all go. Ability to bring tacit and explicit together in an instant and then be the string of those or what you have chosen.

This is what I am trying to do in this blog. See through complexity and reduce to simplicity for the purpose of (hopefully) knowing more about how to be in the world where we are now and how to create conditions for us to live and work in a world more ethical, more participatory, more our own world and not somebody else’s.

What may not change, ever, is our need to communicate, relate to each other, to our world and environment, and keep things simple for quick and complelling communication. Simple in the sense of being focused on the issues and not on the process in order to enable the process to take the shape it needs to take. Simple in these sense of not thinking about ourselves but rather the people we want to address.

I guess this is a buddist way of looking at things?