Is rewards neccessary for KM sharing?

An integral part of any organization today is it’s rewards and recognition program. Regardless of the frequency, the goal is to ensure that the employee feels appreciated and that his/her work has not gone unnoticed. It also serves as a great way of pushing people to do better.

The bottom line is to figure out ways to motivate your people, and with Knowledge Management it is no different. One of the biggest challenges in Knowledge Management these days is getting people actively involved.

Unlike other initiatives which use a mix of the carrot and stick approach, KM can only be promoted using the carrot, you need to have passionate and motivated people at the helm if you want great results. Getting them on board by any means is what you should be aiming to do.

Now the challenge is, what motivates the average users to contribute towards the system? Is it the rewards or the recognition? While i do believe the latter is more coveted from what I’ve seen its a balance between both.

However, for the long term sustainability of any KM initiative there has to a be focused move from a rewards based system to one of recognition. For one, its cheaper , second and more importantly, studies done in corporates have shown that the single largest motivator amongst employees is recognition by their peers and superiors.

Knowledge Management is that perfect platform that enables even the youngest of employees’ to show case their ideas and talents on a corporate platform. It ensures that if you are good at what you do, your voice isn’t lost in the crowd. This, i feel is the biggest selling point of KM to the average employee. It goes without saying there has to be merit in the KM program itself and the benefits it brings.

Some examples of non-cash rewards systems for sharing knowledge include yahoo answers, wikipedia, open-source mass collabouration projects etc.

Janina Kugel and Cornelia Schostek (2004) found monetary rewards seem to have an immediate effect on motivation to share knowledge. Nevertheless, the quality of the knowledge shared can be inferior, and the attitude that knowledge is a private and non collective good is enforced. Once knowledge is shared only because monetary rewards are obtained, knowledge sharing will decrease when these rewards are withdrawn. Additionally to these consequences, high costs led us to focus on non monetary rewards that may not have an immediate, but a long-term impact on motivation. Therefore the use of monetary incentives should only be used with cautious. We believe that it could be considered a good incentive at the beginning of a knowledge management system to obtain a critical mass for a community, but should not be in place for a long time to avoid the negative effects

References :

Arjun Thomas | January 16, 2009, Rewards and Recognization for KM, http://pmtips.net/rewards-recognition-knowledge-management/

Janina KugelCornelia Schostek (2004), Rewards for knowledge sharing? http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/rewards-k-sharing

Organization Culture and KM

In relation to the organizational culture this is a key barrier to success. Culture is generally defined as the beliefs, values, norms, and behaviours that are unique to an organization. In other words, “the unwritten rules” and “how work gets done around here”.

The development of a knowledge-sharing culture relies on:

- shared vision;

- value-based leadership at all levels;

- open and continuous communication;

- rewards and recognition.

The essential point is that the collective goal is shared by individuals who share the mission of that good and, with freedom and honesty, contribute to a conversation about how to realize that mission.

Values-based leadership has a significant impact on an organization. Each organization needs to decide which leadership values will drive its functioning. Once these values have been established, specific behavioural options present themselves. After options have been taken, the results can be measured to determine whether the organization is headed in the direction it desires.

If people are not confident that they can or should communicate freely, then all the best technology will be unable to pry knowledge out of them, or help them absorb knowledge. Most managers agree that there is a definite requirement for a minimum threshold of trust, collaboration, and collective sense of ownership for knowledge to contribute to the creation of value.

In many cultures, motivation through pay will not work. Rewards, recognitions, and incentives are that people will be able to expand their sphere of communication, their sphere of influence in turn, and potentially their sphere of responsibility through promotion.

In conclusion, a knowledge-sharing culture is based on the beliefs, attitudes and customs that exist within an organization.

References

Gonçalo Jorge Morais da Costa and Nuno Miguel Araújo da Silva,Failure in knowledge management: whose is the ethical responsibility? [Online], [Available]. http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/raec/ethicomp5/docs/htm_papers/46Morais%20da%20Costa,%20Gon%E7alo%20Jorge.htm

Combination in Organization

Combination is a process in Nonoka theory of knowledge creation where explicit knowledge are combined to created new explicit knowledge. However, in most organizations, the explicit knowledge are used by humans as information for learning and evaluation, and seldom as a source of knowledge.

Without human intervention, is it possible for combination to take place? How do AI technologies help to support combinations?

Socialization in Organization Culture

Handzic and Chaimungkalanont (2004) notes that most of the KM initiatives focused on the use of IT to support KM, but little attention is focused on socialization in organization culture. Socialisation forms a vital component of Nonaka’s (1998) knowledge creation model and involves the transfer of knowledge between employees through socializing.

Handzic and Chaimungkalanot (2004) study shown a strong and significant positive relationship between informal as well as organised forms of socialisation and creativity in knowledge creation. The results also indicate that informal socialisation had a stronger positive effect on creativity than organised socialisation. These findings confirm the value of socialisation in innovative organisations, and suggest the need for culture that would provide for its encouragement.

How do you create a workplace culture that provides opportunities for socialization?


References:

Handzic M and Chaimungkalanont M (2004), “Enhancing Organisational Creativity through
Socialisation” The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 2 Issue 1, pp 57-64,
available online at www.ejkm.com

Power and structural influence in organization culture

Cultural issues are known to impact attitudes towards divergent thinking (ATDT), and this increased misunderstading when knowledge is shared. The nature of the explicit knowledge means that it is highly subjected to interpretation, and two individuals reading the same documents may interpret them differently.

ATDT is also likely to be influenced by one’s supervisor’s attitude. The amount of structure that supervisors initiate for their subordinates is likely to have a direct, negative effect on subordinates’ divergent thinking, and may also affect divergent thinking indirectly by influencing subordinates’ ATDT. Results generally support the model. Openness to experience and ATDT are positively associated with employees’ creative performance. In addition, some support is provided for a negative relationship between initiating structure and subordinates’ ATDT.

Does supervisors and structures influence the cultural aspects that may result in failure of knowledge management initiatives?

References:

S.D. Williams, Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and creativity in organizations, European Journal of Innovation Management Volume 7 · Number 3 · 2004 · pp. 187-204

How willing are CEOs willing to change Organization Culture to Support KM?

Storey and Barnett (2000) noted the following:

For example, an Ernst & Young survey of 431 US and European organizations conducted in 1997 found that the biggest reported difficulties were ``changing people's behaviour'', and the existence of an inappropriate ``organizational culture'' (Ruggles, 1998). Likewise, in his classic Fortune magazine article, ``Brainpower'', Thomas Stewart (1991) argued that getting results from investing in knowledge requires ``a corporate culture that allows it to flow freely, which means breaking down hierarchies and getting rid of rules that stifle new ideas''.

Story and Barnett (2000) demonstrated that knowledge management initiatives are prone to fail even when they are reasonably well resourced and there appears to be ample commitment from top management. They found that as long as KM appeared simply to be an add-on to the existing
organization and seemed to promise greater efficiency through the freer flow of information, the support of top management was very evident. However, the commitment did not extend to
a concerted willingness to overturn deeply ingrained cultural practices of the organization.

Does having new knowledge management initiatives require changes in organization culture?

References:

John Storey and Elizabeth Barnett, Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure, Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 4 . Number 2 . 2000 . pp. 145±156

How do ensure cultural issues are in place to support KM initiatives?

Peyman et al (2005) examined some cause of failure for knowledge management initiative. They found that lack top management support, lack of direction from leaders, trend to influence KM failure. They also stressed the culture played a part in the demise of the KM project in that cultural issues are not in place to support the KM initiative.

How do you ensure that cultural issues are in place to support KM initiatives?


References

Peyman Akhavan , Mostafa Jafari, Mohammad Fathian, Exploring Failure-Factors Of Implementing Knowledge Management Systems In Organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, May 2005