When I counsel organizations on the basic tenets of Knowledge Management (KM), the issue of corporate culture is often stressed. There is a tendency in many organizations just beginning to formalize their KM strategy to look at corporate culture and, not so much dismiss it, but to take a cursory view of it, admit that it important to their KM strategy, maybe even asses their current culture, but then feel the issue no longer has to be addressed.
Last week there was an interesting article in the news covering the upcoming presidential election that not only caught my attention as a US citizen carefully following the campaigns of McCain and Obama, but also as a Knowledge Management professional. The article was entitled "Hard to be an activist when you have no job." According to a recent study done by Harvard University, the economy has surpassed all social issues as the number one biggest concern among young voters (not the case just weeks ago)- joining the ranks of us more senior voters. So what does this have to do with Knowledge Management?
Culture is a very important element to the development of a Knowledge Management strategy. So much so that when Dan Keldsen and I were developing the AIIM training course on Enterprise 2.0, (which as I have posted in the past is a topic very much related to KM), we decided to include an entire module on the importance of aligning technology alternatives to corporate culture. In so doing we developed a graphic that has gotten much positive reaction.
That graphic seen here (click on it for larger view):
was developed to illustrates the 7 levels of corporate culture that can be present in an organization, and how these can be aligned to different levels of social software. The illustration is used to stress the importance of recognizing the evolution of culture (thus the use of the famous evolution of man graphic - would Sara Palin approve?), and its relationship to technology advances.
As popular as the graphic has become, it falls short in its implication that cultural evolution always moves forward. This is not the case. So – back to the article. Apparently, the youth vote of America is currently focusing primarily on the economy. Yeah? ... Well traditionally, the youth vote looks to social issues, (ending the war/peace, human rights, etc.). But suddenly, do to serious changes in the economy which affect the prospect of jobs, this group of “social” voter has turned to the more basic issues of self-survival.
When I read this I saw the perfect example of why corporate culture is not only an important element of a KM and Enterprise 2.0 strategy, but also one that must be continuously monitored and managed. In training I have done on KM I often referred to the 5 stages of the Maslow’s hierarchy (physiological, safety, emotional, esteem and self-actualization), illustrated below.
As Maslow pointed out, once an individual or society has moved upward in the Maslow stages, needs in the lower level are no longer prioritized. But, if a lower set of needs is no longer met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize needs and re-focus attention on the newly unfulfilled needs. So, for example, until the needs for safety (which include financial security) are satisfied, there can be no focus on issues of emotion (e.g. social networking). This is the situation of today’s voting youth.
And what of corporate culture? Like these voters the culture of a corporation can change, can move backwards if you will, if serious underlying conditions of an organization change. A culture thriving in “self actualization”, comprised of individuals that readily embrace knowledge sharing and social computing can see itself slip backwards, further down the evolution chain, should it be threatened or altered by radical change in profit, a poorly managed merger or acquisition, a change in leadership, or any such situation that alters the states of basic safety and stability.
I am often asked how often does a KM strategy have to be changed. My answer is usually to look to the basic elements of that strategy: business objectives, people/culture, process and technology. When any one of these changes significantly, then it is time to reassess your KM strategy.
As the story of our voting youth points out, recognize that changes can cause situations that move culture not only forwards, but backwards on the “evolutionary chain” of corporate culture.
