Knowledge is evidently related to science, superior experience, intelligent people, learning capabilities and high qualitative, interactive information. With such characteristics it seems to be very chic and attractive to stimulate managers to proclaim that they lead a knowledge organization. This is the ultimate reason that the phrase “knowledge management”, with so many interesting elements, might have been even more abused and misused than all the other examples previously mentioned.
We can observe a paradox: leaders who are loudly claiming that they are adapting the newest insights about knowledge often do the opposite; they remain old-fashioned machine bureaucrats with greedy PR instincts and a tiny flavor of innovation. Being part of such an organization is especially frustrating for employees in these days of the digital age. They know that the claim for knowledge management is false; that the rituals echo egos more then content. Knowledge management is not a simple commodity, and can only be obtained, as we will prove, after hard work.
Case: “Not invented here” syndrome
A University has a unique chance to develop a management development program for a prestigious global company. The Dean and his staff are very enthusiastic and stimulate the companys HR staff and their consultant to work with them in order to prepare an outstanding and very innovative learning program. It is clear that E-business will be the central issue because it is the new way of life. The corporate staff and the university mutually agree to launch a management-training program with a strong relationship between strategic projects and change management.
All of the officers involved were excited by the idea. Shortly after the beginning of the management-training program, the power structure within the university and the company changed simultaneously. It happened partly by accident (succession) and partly for budgetary reasons. The new officers responsible from both sides had to start again from scratch with no clue about – and worse, no interest in – the ongoing process. The result: they killed the project shortly after take-off, because they preferred their own invention, a “down to earth, no nonsense approach”. Many talented knowledge workers left the company as a result and the company now faces the backfire effect of being part of a “not invented here” syndrome from mediocre management. This is the opposite of a knowledge organization.
source: http://www.managementsite.com/236/The-Knowledge-Organization.aspx
