Deciding what is or is not knowledge is a very important matter in our efforts to absorb knowledge from others. This decision can be made explicitly or implicitly. It can be made as a conscious decision or can occur outside of our conscious awareness. The result of this decision can impact individual and group creativity as well as the soundness of problem solving solutions that are developed.
In order to gain understanding of how this decision plays out, it is helpful to become aware of our assumptions generally about the boundaries of knowledge. That is, what are our beliefs about what passes for knowledge or what is "good" knowledge. For example, a group of human resource consultants and a group of farmers may have different beliefs about what constitutes knowledge and good knowledge in terms of their work. In addition, there are our beliefs about specific types of knowledge. My intervening in a work conversation to share the most recent Red Sox score may elicit reactions from non-New Englanders that this specific knowledge is outside the boundary of useful knowledge.
I realize that saying something is "not knowledge" is a bit strong. However, my point is that when we decide to exclude something from our awareness, we are saying that it can safely be ignored. From the perspective of the individual or collective knowledge processor, it is "not knowledge."
Let me provide another example. What if right now in the middle of this post, I start speaking about a recent performance of Mozart's opera,The Magic Flute which I recently attended and how the different sub-plots were opened, explored and dramatized and then closed at the end leading me to conclude.....Would you now be saying to yourself: "I visited this blog to hear about knowledge management or to pursue some other professional topic and this opera stuff is not germane. It is time to surf on." Would you have said, "this opera stuff is boring (add your own adjective) and a waste of my time and I do not choose to spend time on this topic."
Certainly one thing that may be going on in your reaction is a legitimate assessment of whether your expectations are being met as well as an assessment comparing the content of the post to your professional goals and mission.
What may be less explicit is a reaction based on underlying assumptions and beliefs about what is legitimate knowledge for the purposes of a professional, work-related endeavor. I suggest that each of us has these assumptions as individuals and that organizational culture or operating norms maintain these assumptions for organizations. Those beliefs about what is useful professional knowledge may be narrow or broad. And opera or culture may fall within those boundaries of knowledge or outside of them.
To the extent we make a conscious decision about whether to allow this new knowledge to register, we are allocating risk by saying the risk of missing a more useful solution using this knowledge is less than the risk of wasting time. In this case, we are exercising our best judgment in carrying out our work endeavor. On the other hand, this decision may be outside of our awareness, in which case the reasoned allocation of risk does not occur.
What we are doing in both of these cases is deciding what is knowledge and what is good knowledge. For now, I will leave it to the Left-brain, Right-brain theorists to posit the increased value of out-of-the-box inputs in advancing creativity and innovation. For our purposes now, the point that I want to make is the value of being aware that we do make these decisions. When we do make these decisions, one possible result is the exclusion of specific knowledge from our contemplation as well as the particular aspects of relational, conceptual thinking that are inherent in this knowledge.
How can we apply this in our organizational life?
One thing is to try to be aware of our reactions when we encounter knowledge that does not appear to fit. Grimacing may be one clue that we are having this reaction. In the Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management Workshop that I run, we explore many other phenomena that occur when we encounter knowledge that diverges from our expectations, assumptions and beliefs. By having this awareness, we can place ourselves in a position where we can assess the relative risks and benefits of excluding or encountering this knowledge. We can consciously broaden the boundaries of what is considered good knowledge for particular types of tasks.
For implementation tasks, a narrower boundary for what is knowledge may suffice. For linear problem solving tasks, a broader boundary may be desirable. And, for creative tasks, an even broader boundary may be useful. In these creative endeavors, we can experiment with particular types of knowledge. For example, several years ago, there was a trend for including poetry as useful knowledge in a business context. The Heart Aroused
We can continue to be conscious in our use of social networking tools. Each new app on Facebook, Linked-In or your corporate networking site represents a decision about what category of knowledge to allow in to the mainstream. We seem to have collectively decided that pictures of the sender or receiver are good knowledge. This is a decision on what are the boundaries of knowledge in the organization.
I welcome your comments.
Comments