Behavioural Drivers

What is it that drives an individual to share? Recognition, attention and reciprocation of emotion are enough reasons for people to share and survive social interactions in their personal lives, but how does human nature react in the simulated environment of daily work? In the final article of this series, Kirstie Chapple & Professor Amin Rajan explore the behavioural drivers some companies are using to inspire employees to part with their knowledge.

'There is at least one point in the history of any company when you have to change dramatically to rise to the next performance level. Miss the moment, and you start to decline.' Andrew Grove, Chairman of Intel.

This is self evident, yet few companies achieve the breakthrough. Our second article in this series argued that for many leading companies in the world, knowledge management is old wine served in new bottles i.e. it is a response to yesterday's unsolved problems. Why? Converting individual learning into organisational learning is first and foremost about values and behaviours. In other words, it is about people.

This recognition was not present in the first generation of projects on business process re-engineering at the start of this decade. And it is not present now in the current generation of projects on knowledge management in many companies on both sides of the Atlantic.

Our pilot work that preceded the main research for our report (see end of article) sampled some 8,000 companies who were known to have had some sort of knowledge management initiatives. On closer inspection, it was clear that in many of them, the initiative merely involved introducing IT-based systems such as groupware, intranet or Lotus Notes, without addressing the associated behavioural issues. So far, the new systems have either automated the existing arrangements of knowledge exchange or hastened its pace.

Developing the second stage rocket

Of course, one must not under-estimate the role of IT. It is necessary to have the relevant systems in place, but this in itself is not sufficient. As mentioned in our second article, BP's initiative on virtual teams makes extensive use of multi-media technologies. But it has worked only because BP pays a lot of attention to people issues.

First, they have ensured that individuals who work in the virtual teams know one another well and have common mental models about problems and solutions they deal with. Second, they have provided special coaching for these individuals in the handling of technology and interpersonal relationships conducted across countries. Third, they have nurtured a strong sense of identification with the concept of virtual teamworking, by making individuals realise that it makes their jobs easier, interesting, more effective and less hassling. As a result, individuals feel that they are making personal impacts in their own workplace.

This thumb nail sketch of the BP experience allows us to make a more general point; namely, knowledge creation and sharing requires putting into place those factors that impact on individual behaviours. Without them, it is a pointless exercise. Yes, technology and the various work practices definitely improve ability and motivation of the individual to engage in self learning and knowledge sharing. They are enabling factors in kick-starting the culture of converting individual learning into organisational learning. But they only constitute a first stage rocket. They get us off the ground but do not take us all the way into orbit. Something else is needed as well - something that not only nurtures this culture but also ensures that the resulting learning produces tangible business benefits. Why do we need this something else?

It would be an over-exaggeration to say that the corporate renewal programmes described in the last article have been well received by employees affected by them. Far from it. In an overwhelming majority of companies, top managers have regarded change as an opportunity to revitalise the business. In contrast, many of their staff see it as disruptive and intrusive, a testimony of failure at the top.

'We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were to form up in teams, we would be re-organised. We tend to meet any new situation by re-organising - and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.' said the Roman soldier Petronius Arbitor. What he articulated in AD 60 still holds true for the vast majority of people at today's changing workplace.

There is a clear perception gap, and this reveals a leadership issue. We have drawn three key personal lessons from our research:

Never under-estimate the magnetism of the past
The only person who likes change is a baby with a wet nappy!
Clear leadership at the top makes a lot of difference.

Not surprisingly, in many organisations the attitudinal changes have only been reported as durable as the crises that caused them.

Responding to the 'Gut Feel'

So what is the way forward? Quite simply, it is about engaging the individual. It is about answering the four most frequently asked questions in today's new workplace.

First, where are we going? In a period of rapid change, people want some idea of the strategic direction and how they will get there. This is a leadership issue.

Second, will the strategy work? On a surface level this is a credibility issue but at a deeper level it is about whether we have leaders and the necessary culture to take us to the promised land. Third, how will the strategy affect us? This is about the impact in the 'boiler room' where we spend a large part of our waking hours. Fourth, what's in it for me? This is about money and, more importantly non-money rewards.

Our research found that companies who paid special attention to these questions were definitely evolving as learning organisations. They have paid a lot of attention to strategy, leadership and culture.

But they are doing something else as well. They are overtly trying to answer the last two questions by revamping the reward systems in order to encourage their staff to go that proverbial extra mile, which today's unforgiving market place demands.

In our sample of companies, six such factors were identified as crucial. Crucial in the sense that they have sought to tackle head-on two of the questions raised above i.e. 'how will it affect me?' and 'what's in it for me?' The factors in question are:

Less hassle: some 80 per cent of problems that people encounter in their daily work are repeat problems. A knowledge sharing culture would serve to reduce the hassle factor that employees have to put up with in their everyday work
Sustainable job: if knowledge sharing enhances corporate competitiveness, then a sharing culture would ensure sustainable jobs through business success
Personal recognition: people may work for money but they live for recognition. Of all the behaviour drivers, this was found to be most effective
Personal legacy: this has been tried particularly in US companies such as Motorola and Chrysler. The idea is to drive home the point to the individual that knowledge sharing behaviours can leave a lasting impact on one's job
Minimum safety net: if individuals are to engage in experimentation and learn from mistakes, they need to know the acceptable level of risks. The safety net seeks to tell them how far they can think outside the box
Financial reward: one in two companies have sought to underpin knowledge sharing behaviours with financial incentives. Of all the six drivers mentioned here, this was found to be the least effective.

In fact, our research highlights two points. First, individual organisations need to decide what drivers are most consistent with their culture. Second, unless the appropriate drivers of behaviour are not in place, the knowledge management initiatives are unlikely to produce the targeted outcomes.

This is hardly surprising. A real life organisation is a messy indeterminate place. In it, individual behaviours are influenced more by emotion than reason; more by perceptions than facts. In sum, behaviours are a matter of the subjective worldview of the individual. A variety of incentives are needed to influence them. This is, of course common sense. But as we know all too well, common sense is not always common practice. This is because many companies continue to ignore the worldview of the individual; especially how he or she feels about things at the subconscious level.

For companies, to engage the individual means answering four questions which all of us face every day in our subconscious selves. Research shows that we do not articulate them, but 70 per cent of major business, career and personal decisions we make every day are driven by four questions that influence our gut feel:

Why do I want to get out to work in the morning? The answer could be 'I have an interesting, worthwhile job where I get on well with my manager and colleagues'.

What is special about me, because my mother used to say I am a great person? The answer could be that my job offers a lot of recognition which proves what my mother used to say.

What do I want to be remembered for? The answer could be that my job offers me an opportunity to create impacts for which I will be long remembered by my colleagues. It is about creating a legacy.

What happens if things go wrong when I think outside the box? The answer could be that I have a safety net in terms of clear parameters within which I can act, and within which my mistakes will be tolerated by my line manager.

So, the key to knowledge sharing is putting in place those behavioural drivers which run with the grain of human nature. As we all know, we may work for money but we definitely live for recognition and legacy.

Not surprisingly, companies like AT&T and Motorola have quarterly surveys of employees which seek to assess whether they 'feel' that knowledge sharing values are being implemented in the specific confines of their workplace. The results are presented in the form of a 'gut feel' index which is tracked regularly by top executives. The results for individual sections or divisions are also used as vehicles to encourage benchmarking, networking and knowledge sharing. On their part, employees genuinely feel that someone at the top cares and listens.

As a conclusion to this series of three articles, we would like to leave you with our thought for the day. Albert Einstein was right when he commented on what computers and humans can do together. But if he had the opportunity to talk to some 150 leading companies today, we feel that he might have put that quote slightly differently. If we had to guess, the phrase would be something like:

' knowledge management is 20 per cent technology and 80 per cent people.'

Professor Rajan is Chief Executive of CREATE, and is also Chairman of TACK Masterclass Training. Kirsty Chapple is research Manager at CREATE. They can both be contacted at:

Create_uk@compuserve.com

'Good Practices in Knowledge Creation & Exchange', by Amin Rajan, Elizabeth Lank and Kirsty Chapple, is available from CREATE, 15 Tonbridge Chambers, Pembury Road, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 2HZ Tel: 01732 369191 Fax: 01732