All men are islands (of information)

If you think about it, each successive generation has entered the workforce at least, what, 20% more knowledgable about business and technology than the previous generation?  I am speculating, don't have any actual research at hand, but I have to believe that the generation that my son represents will be much more adept at using technology and have much more information at their disposal than I do.  Heck, working with a computer (at seven years of age) is old hat to him.  I didn't see a computer until I was 15.

But it's not just technical skills or computer skills.  People today are much more broadly educated than previous generations, and have the ability to review what went right and wrong with initiatives and attempts to improve a process or approach in the past.  In fact, if recent generations suffer anything, it's probably the need to spend a lot of time analyzing what went wrong with the way things were done in the past. 

As they come out of college now, most kids are smarter and more adept at technology and much more comfortable with change than my generation, and I think that was probably true of my generation when we came out.  So what's the point?

Collectively, our workforces are much smarter than they were 20 years ago, yet we use the same working models and processes when there were fewer "management" workers and more "line" or blue collar workers.  Not much has changed in the way we work, but a lot has changed about the capabilities of the people who are working.

Once (and still) we worried about islands of information or corporate silos, where one group or another had access to information and hoarded that information to gain power.  While this is still an issue, it seems to me that one of the larger challenges to a business is not silos but individuals hoarding and using information.  One of the benefits of a smarter, more capable workforce doing knowledge work rather than assembly is that a firm can provide the same outputs with fewer workers.  As the number of workers falls, their span of impact increases, and most likely their span of knowledge as well.  What happens when just a few of these knowledge workers hoards information, or simply refuses to share his or her knowledge about an issue or topic?

It seems to me that in a right sized environment, the total capability of the firm is based not on what people know, but on what knowledge and information they are willing to share.  As the firm outsources various functions, the people remaining within the firm take on greater and greater value.  Our challenge isn't knowledge management as much as it is encouraging the communication and sharing of knowledge and information across the organization.  It isn't as important "who knows what" as it is being able to obtain and use that information and knowledge.

Other than coercion, how does a firm encourage people to participate in a stream of knowledge and add to that knowledge?  One, take away reasons to hoard the information.  If a person feels his or her job is uncertain or likely to go away, he or she will work to define the role as very important.  This will mean they will become less willing to share information, as it becomes more valuable.  Two, compensate people who share information or add to corporate knowledge.  Compensation can be a powerful positive influencer.  Show people that it pays to share knowledge.  Change the way you compensate and reward people within a business process or function.  Three, consider the way your firm works.  Is it using 1950s processes and concepts to support a workforce that has much more education and experience and capability?

Comments

[Phil Gerbyshak]

Great suggestions! I've seen both of your ideas in action, and while some are slow to change, eventually it does work out and break down the barriers. Thanks for the insights!

[Matt Whyndham]

Compensation or pay is generally a weak tool, and to be fair you have to faff about measuring things which can get bureaucratic.

Esteem in the more general sense is more abstract, but more effective.

This would mean project managers making a point of the value of an individual's sharing during meetings, and so forth.

[Matt Whyndham]

Addendum: my blog Double Loop more appropriate here.

[Ton Zijlstra]

Hi Jeffry,
I referenced your posting, but it seems my trackback did not come through. So here's the link to my blogposting:
http://www.zylstra.org/blog/archives/2006/05/no_man_should_w_3.html