Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Chris Blodgett
Figure 7: KM Institutional Effectiveness Framework (KM IEF)
4.1 Institutional Knowledge Development (IKD)
The left side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> KM IEF embraces <strong>the</strong> Institutional Knowledge Development (IKD) domain that
focuses on top-down sense-making where strategic concepts are translated into organizational
objectives and desired effects. This in turn creates <strong>the</strong> organizational context where both <strong>the</strong> parent
and child organizations must operate; unfortunately, few military leaders are taught this skill and <strong>the</strong>y
reach out to heroic amateurs - staff <strong>of</strong>ficers who draw upon <strong>the</strong>ir own operational/tactical training and
planning experience. This is similar to <strong>the</strong> Effects Based Approach to Operations (EBAO) - “even
though <strong>the</strong> term ‘EBAO’ is no longer being used, <strong>the</strong> core functions remain” (Three Swords 2010).
Top-down sense-making does require worker engagement. “We’ve all met managers who try to keep
<strong>the</strong>ir employees focused on <strong>the</strong> work and let some strategic planning group think about <strong>the</strong> external,
competitive world. But <strong>the</strong> attention psychology literature suggests that employees will pay more
attention to <strong>the</strong>ir work if <strong>the</strong>y understand it in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> competitive world” (Davenport/Beck
2001).
4.2 Knowledge is Contextual
Truly adept leaders know how to identify <strong>the</strong> context within which <strong>the</strong>y are working and how to change
<strong>the</strong>ir behaviour to match. Institutional leadership implies a contextual perspective that is foreign to
many military leaders because <strong>the</strong> operational/tactical ‘doing’ is so entrenched into <strong>the</strong> military
psyche. David Snowden’s Cynefin Framework (Figure 8) shows complexity as a way <strong>of</strong> thinking
about <strong>the</strong> world in that different contexts make knowledge simple, complicated, complex or chaotic
(Snowden/Boone 2007). Simple knowledge is characterized by stability where <strong>the</strong> cause-and-effect
relationships are reasonably evident: sense-categorize-respond. Those working in this context
typically reside in <strong>the</strong> ‘worker’ domain looking to higher level guidance for section Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference
(TOR), individual job descriptions and job aides.
Complicated ‘knowledge’ typically has more than one response option and lends itself more to
systems thinking where <strong>the</strong> cause-and-effect relationships are not so evident; however, given enough
time, people and money any issue can be resolved: decision-makers must sense-analyse-respond.
Those working in this context typically reside in <strong>the</strong> ‘management’ domain where experts and heroic
amateurs (staff <strong>of</strong>ficers) look to better integrate <strong>the</strong> internal stove-piped functional perspectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
organization and/or external stakeholder organizations.
A key ‘complexity’ characteristic is that <strong>the</strong> interactions <strong>of</strong> large numbers <strong>of</strong> interacting elements are
not linear so minor changes can produce disproportionately major consequences; ie, “most situations
and decisions in organizations are complex because some major change…introduces unpredictability
and flux” (Snowden/Boone 2007). This means that ‘leaders’ must fight <strong>the</strong> urge to ‘solve <strong>the</strong> symptom’
and wait for <strong>the</strong> answer to <strong>the</strong> problem to make itself apparent. They must be prepared to probesense-respond.
Most organizations that are unable to effectively deal with complexity seem to
continuously bounce back and forth between <strong>the</strong> complicated context and <strong>the</strong> chaotic context at <strong>the</strong>
whims <strong>of</strong> changing internal and external environments. “Leaders who try to impose order in a
complex context will fail, but those who set <strong>the</strong> stage, step back a bit, allow patterns to emerge, and
determine which ones are desirable will succeed” (Snowden/Boone 2007).
1097