Broadening Knowledge Base LO4888

Malcolm Burson (mooney@MAINE.MAINE.EDU)
Mon, 15 Jan 1996 14:02:50 -0500

Replying to LO4689 --

To all who took the time to respond to my "Broadening Knowledge Base"
posting of a few weeks ago, my thanks. You provided me with a wealth of
new ways of thinking about the issue, some interesting practice stories,
and some good suggestions for going further.

I'd like to keep the thread going by responding to a few of your ideas:

In LO4689, Rol said,
>Instead of mandating classes (Diane's suggestion in LO 4666),
>mandate behaviors. If, for example, the organization believes in
>teams, that has powerful implications for how team members
>will interact (snip) If this route is taken, the classes will be
>accepted as a tool to help people meet required standards.

Two matters here elicit a response. First, like many of the other
responses, these postings assume that _classes_ of some sort are the
normative and desireable delivery vehicle for imparting knowledge.
Certainly, our organization like many others has a long-standing
organizational design and structures (the training office, even tho
we now call it "professional development") that validates this
approach. However, our experience is that even when well-designed
and competently delivered, this approach doesn't lend itself to good
knowledge transfer and OJT application. Video- or computer-based
systems are even less effective. Our best "training" events include
a high quotient of interactive, experiential approaches BUT I'm
really going to have to revise my models in order to apply such
approaches to the kind of "basic business knowledge" that we seem to
need.

Secondly, Rol uses the phrase, "mandate behaviors." While he goes on to
soften this somewhat, it has an interesting paradoxical character to it.
Any responses?

>From my point of view, the most helpful response was the simplest.

In LO4609, Rol writes,
>You want to know what they (front-line staff) think. So ask them.

and a number of others of you made similar suggestions. Now, why didn't I
think of that?

Finally, in LO4615, Bo writes,
>My suggestion would be to (and I know this will draw comment)
>separate the prevailing mental models of, "who should know what"
>and, "who knows what is best for whom" from the problem of what
>knowledge is needed where and when in the business process. When
>you have established the knowledge requirements for the process
>events, then you have a basis for answering the question, "who needs
>to know what to do their job.

This is an extremely valuable insight, IMHO. But in a certain way,
it still risks the problem of paternalism in the decisions about
"what knowledge is needed where and when in the business process."
The solution, if there is one, is to balance Rol's "just ask" with
trusting our own managerial insights and view of broader processes.
If Peter Block is right, after all, this is just what managers who
are good stewards should be about.

Thanks again to all who have contributed.

--
Malcolm Burson<mooney@maine.maine.edu