As a young professional, I was lucky to work in a wide variety of enterprise types. I was often struck by the differences in management approach among those in the for-profit sector, the non-profit sector, and the not-for-profit sector. In my work, I was able to identify distinctions which became part of my own approach to management.
Not surprisingly, through the influence of many fine mentors and exposure to the teachings of many excellent management leaders, I drew conclusions that I shared along the way with my own professional colleagues and (later) with clients for whom my company provided consulting services.
One “theme” (we might call it) seemed to come up repeatedly over the years, and that’s the idea that no matter what type of organization or enterprise is being managed, basic management principles apply. The idea seems almost too obvious, too elementary.
Yet I find myself sometimes troubled by the vagaries of interpretation that seem to pop up when one or another of these organization types (those I noted above) seems to be seeking management expertise and success from one type (say, from the for-profit sector) when the enterprise itself falls into another category (not-for-profit or non-profit in this example, but the types could be re-arranged).
Let me explain. One of the things I learned early on was that – in an ideal situation (and I am nothing if not an idealist in these matters!) – good management principles work in every type of organization. So as I read Drucker and others, I learned that the principles that ensure success for the organization in achieving its organizational mission seem to cut across all types of organizations. And as I got deeper into KM/Knowledge Services as a discipline and management methodology, certain principles relating to successful management and leadership worked just fine.
Except for one big caveat: the industry or line of work in which KM and knowledge services is practiced has great influence on how well KM and knowledge services succeed. Or are accepted in the workplace.
And the solution I had come up with had more to do with my own interpretations of business management, for I felt strongly driven by the principles of business management and took many opportunities to apply business management principles to every organizational framework I encountered. Indeed, I even talked about the value of applying “business-like” management to non-profit and not-for-profit situations, and while I wasn’t always the most popular fellow in the discussion, it was important – to me – that we understand and accept business management as the model for managing all organizations.
But that was pretty naive thinking, wasn’t it? When we think about all the different environments to which we are trying to bring – or improve – knowledge development and knowledge sharing (and we’re trying very hard – think about that idealism mentioned above: we really do want to change the world through well-practiced KM/knowledge services), we run into all sorts of different environmental issues, and influences, and patterns.
So we ask: is it possible to come up with one set of principles for management and leadership in KM/Knowledge Services? When, for example, we’re developing knowledge strategy and we look – in a strictly business situation – at things like using KM/Knowledge Services for building competitive advantage, don’t we come up with one set of principles and objectives?
But what about – in another example – we’re working with a charity that has as its mission a very humanitarian goal of one sort or another. Of course the question of competition (“Who else is doing what we do?”) comes up and is considered, to a certain extent. But is that a primary or critical question in developing that organization’s knowledge strategy? I would be inclined to ask how the organization will use KM/Knowledge Services to achieve the successful achievement of its mission, and refer back to the organization’s own mission statement. It probably does not focus a great deal on competitive advantage (although it might, in some circumstances).
So here’s my question for our discussion:
What do you think? Can one set of KM/Knowledge Services management and leadership principles work across all types of companies, organizations, and entities in which people “work together to accomplish something” (Mr. Guy’s quick-and-easy a definition of an organization)?
And here’s a hint to guide our discussion:
Are we perhaps looking at the wrong model, when we look to business management for guidance? Should we – just a thought – look to the principles of behavioral science, as practiced in organizational development and organizational effectiveness?
Or, in seeking to provide good, solid KM/Knowledge Services (whether for our own organizations or for our clients), should we be seeking some sort of combination of business management and organizational development?
Or something else?
What’s your opinion?
Guy St. Clair says
At the Association of Independent Information Professionals LinkedIn Group, Danny Lin wrote:
Modern organization is often deemed to be organic so to deal with the dynamic business environment. Like it or not, business world is very competitive and ruthless. Organization development is of course necessary to make your organization ready for the changes in the near future. Without this consideration, any organization can become very fragile.
Leodegardo Pruna says
The topic brought to fore would be very enlightening as it will clear the importance of management and development in business. Thanks for bringing this out for discussion, it will not only be an eye opener but a foundation for more discussions and exchanges of ideas.
Leodegardo Pruna says
I also think that a multidisciplinary approach in dealing with knowledge management and development in general should be undertaken. Of course, there is no one approach for all cases. Application should be on a case to case basis, re: what is good to a case may not be in another.
Guy St. Clair says
Paul T. Jackson at the Corporate Librarians LinkedIn Group wrote:
In the discussion, I think one has to look back at all the various methods we’ve used to outline the process of “Management,” whether business or non-profit. In the late 60s we saw the development of “efficiency experts,” then they became the “organizational developers,” although the fundraisers took over that title. Later came Drucker’s MBO, TQM, Quality Circles, Re-engineering, Strategic Planning (much of these methods were not dissimilar to MBO,) and then in the 1990s we discovered TRIZ….the science of problem solving.
My take on even KMKnowledge Services is that there isn’t any style of management which is not there for ‘problem’ solving, whether the problem is knowledge intensive, marketing, production, personnel deployment…whatever. It’s all problem solving. Some of it works and some of it doesn’t always because of external issues one can’t contain in any group; business or non-profit. In the process of problem solving we develop the program or business, hopefully for the better.
I’m not sure I would care what the process is called; other than the fact that with enough information and study the ‘problem’ or process can be optimized provided you’ve selected the ‘real’ problem which is what TRIZ is all about…FIND THE RIGHT PROBLEM TO SOLVE. Call it what you want, but be sure you know what the problem is.
Guy responds:
Thanks, Paul, for that insightful comment. And to the other folks who responded so thoughtfully. You’re absolutely right, Paul, it all has to do with cutting through all the layers and finding out exactly what it is that needs to be “fixed” (or started, if it’s a situation in which KD/KS will be the mechanism for understanding and implementing an innovation). But we have to get to the core, and you’ve said it very well. Thank you – and the other responders – very much.
Guy St. Clair says
Danny Lin at the Association of Independent Information Professionals LinkedIn Group writes:
Modern organization is often deemed to be organic so to deal with the dynamic business environment. Like it or not, business world is very competitive and ruthless. Organization development is of course necessary to make your organization ready for the changes in the near future. Without this consideration, any organization can become very fragile.
Guy St. Clair says
Tim Peterson at the AIIM LinkedIn Group writes:
I know profit organizations are concerned about competition, therefore they are the first to upgrade to the new technologies before their competitors.
There are management strategies like waterfall, agile and wet agile. Wet agile is a hybrid management style that includes miles stone check points but adds the ability to stop the project and restart at any point in the flow chart.
Developers need time to produce the code, but they can also benefit from another pair of eyes on the project. Sometimes explaining things to another person can bring to light another option.