111. On Knowledge Behaviors

“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 min determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than 5 min,” Albert Einstein is alleged to have said. Another apocrypha imparts that “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” Famous remarks are seldom cited correctly but what becomes folklore is somehow imbued with wisdom: the first quote intimates that the quality of a solution is in direct proportion to that of the description of what one thinks must be solved; the second, that answers often lie outside the system.

Irrespectively, what with globalization, man devises and applies in ever-growing numbers a myriad tools, methods, and approaches to speed the business of mankind.¹ These days, competitive advantage in the corporate world is often considered to spring from knowledge management for organizational learning. (In The Future of Management, Hamel (2007) calls for nimble, lattice-based organizations where innovation, modern management’s new panacea, is everybody’s business. The work of management will be less and less the responsibility of managers: distributed leadership will come of age.) Yet, well into the twenty-first century, organizations that profess to manage for knowledge generation and sharing in the current competitive reality eschew the effective questions of critical thinking. Hackneyed solutions to misalignment of strategy, structure, and systems still proliferate––and spawn further problems––even though alternative organizational forms, characteristically flexible and open, have come into sight at business, corporate, and inter-organizational levels.² (In contrast, in high-performance organizations, the locus of interest has for some time been purpose, processes, and people.) Since the great accomplishments of man result from ideas of enthusiasm, habits of mind and knowledge behaviors can help root out dogma––e.g., strategy, structure, and systems; imagine or invent futures; and refute Eric Sevareid’s assertion that “The chief cause of problems is solutions.”

By definition, a problem is any situation or matter involving uncertainty, the response to which involves perplexity or difficulty and is not immediately known. Complex problems demand craftsmanship, creativity, insightfulness, perseverance, and strategic reasoning. However, mindsets³ borne of our education, experience, or (especially) environment instruct us to see things in ways that do not necessarily conduce efficient or effective problem solving, when they do not perpetuate or inflame the problem. (What is more, taking a reflective stance in the midst of active problem solving is admittedly not easy.) Exercising mindfulness, the psychological quality of self-regulation of attention coupled with curiosity and openness, can help individuals recognize and rework habitual patterns of mind. Since excellence is not an act but a practice, each of us can develop composite habits of mind that attend to value, inclination, sensitivity, capability, and commitment––all defined toward behaving intelligently when confronted with problems. These are the transcending characteristics of peak performers (Fig. 111.1).

Without a doubt, knowledge management has much to do with behavioral change. For that reason, high-performance organizations seek to minimize the drag of old mental models and help embed knowledge behaviors. What might these be? From the 16 desirable habits of mind, a practical, multiagent operating model would see that individuals, groups, and organizations consciously ask, learn, and share before, during, and after an activity.⁴ A high-end inventory of knowledge behaviors––that together would enrich a knowledge culture––reads as follows:

Put differently, knowledge behaviors anchored in the 16 habits of mind require that every person, team, and community should make decided inquiries before taking action, harvest knowledge during its execution, and share the fruits of experience––however bitter––later. This is nothing new: all are fundamentally social behaviors. The difficulty, we shall see, is to do so in concert.

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” is an adage of universal application. It signifies that you can give someone means and opportunity but cannot force that person to avail of them. The relationship between motive, means (or ability), and opportunity––and what happens where it is not close––explains much human behavior by dint of reasoned action. Beyond means and opportunity, the theory of planned behavior posits an obvious argument: intention, which is assumed to capture intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors,⁵ determines behavior, hence action.

The theory of planned behavior has had large application, for instance, in health, nutrition, and environmental psychology.⁶ In respect of knowledge sharing, however, Siemsen et al. (2007) have concluded that the three variables are neither linear not multiplicative: a bottleneck––or constraining factor––in any one of them will determine what knowledge sharing may occur⁷; also, the variables should not be addressed independently but in a dynamic and coordinated manner. Having said this, motivation is pivotal. Surely, investigations about motive, means, and opportunity can help organizations determine better where to invest resources productively across the knowledge sharing landscape.⁸

In the all-too-rare instances where large organizations make a dedicated effort at boosting knowledge sharing, endeavors generally target job design,⁹ performance appraisal, compensation and rewards, managerial styles, information and communications technoloy, and training as important predictors of motivation. These organizations should also consider recruiting personnel who already display knowledge behaviors: surely, considering person–environment fit to ensure congruence of individual and organizational values and goals is the easiest way to facilitate knowledge sharing among personnel. Evidently, an organization that values knowledge sharing and selects personnel who swear by this value will equip itself with staff who are positive about sharing to start with; investments elsewhere may no longer be so urgent because the likelihood that the organization’s human resource management practices fulfill needs will accordingly be higher. Time spent on hiring is time well spent. “Hire peoplewho are better than you are, then leave them to get on with it. Look for people who will aim for the remarkable, who will not settle for the routine,” David Ogilvy advised.