Management Organization Learning and Knowledge - Essay Example

?Management organisation learning and knowledge The current dis explores significance of knowledge management and learning in a small service-oriented firm based on information gathered through semi-structured interviews with employees at all levels. These findings have been summarized and assessed in relation to existing literature on knowledge management and human resource practices. Findings suggest partial application of effective knowledge management practices. Many gaps have been identified which need to be filled in order to achieve effective knowledge management and learning. Recommendations are proposed to address the issues. Table of contents Introduction and background 3 Review of literature 4 Method 7 Key findings 7 Discussion 10 Conclusions and recommendations 11 References Introduction and background: Emphasizing the importance of knowledge, contemporary organisations are adopting business models that provide knowledge products and services. Many other organisations have made knowledge products and services as their key business strategies, and have developed comprehensive mechanisms to create, gather, share, store and apply knowledge to their day-to-day operations. Such processes provide structured and systematic work processes that not only provide effective knowledge management but also desired business results. Organisation under study is a small call centre with about 300 employees that is a query resolution center for one region. Its client is provider of telecommunications services in the country. This unit receives calls from customers of specific zone related to queries, complaints, issues, new products etc. This setup is headed by an operations director who manages the HR function, operations functions, facilities and risk and compliance functions. Each function is headed by divisional manager that is responsible for respective departmental activities. The operations function is largest and comprises of 250 employees. The divisional manager in operations has five managers and 10 team leaders and about 180 call centre executives. Nature of work at this call centre is highly sensitive as it involves telephonic conversation with end customers as well as dealing with rapidly changing products and applications. Services provided at this call centre have direct impact on business and customer satisfaction. In order to provide good service, a variety of skills such as call handling skills, communication, learning abilities, positive attitude, leadership, motivational skills, feedback etc are required at various levels. Learning and knowledge sharing are extremely significant in such businesses where customer demands keep changing and new products are continuously launched not only to meet customer needs but also to sustain competitiveness in the market, and attract more users as well as retain existing customers. Moreover, organisational structure is a team-based structure with each team leader responsible for a team of 10-15 executives. Review of literature: Peter Drucker was the first management pioneer to emphasize knowledge management and knowledge working as the 21st century challenge (2003). Newell et al. (2004) describe knowledge workers as those individuals with good competencies, skills and decision-making and problem-solving abilities. Their contributions help in effective knowledge management through their contribution in day-to-day activities; hence, such activities can be carried out by employees at all levels based on their work and opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills. Ambriola et al (2003; p.192) describe call centre workers as knowledge workers by stating, ‘the basic tenet is that work in call centres has to be conceptualized in terms of distributed knowledge. This means that only part of the knowledge needed to carry out any transaction is in the mind of the operator, important knowledge has to be distributed among colleagues in the organisation, available and accessible cognitive artifacts in the work environment, and clients. The way productivity was important in scientific management concept, knowledge work is essential in 21st century. In fact, the technological advancements, capital investments, etc are a result of applying knowledge to work. A similar trend of competitiveness would force organisations to improve their knowledge capital in order to survive. Next, organisations would require application of knowledge to knowledge. Drucker (1999) has identified six major factors that determine knowledge-worker productivity namely, the task, autonomy, continuing innovation, continuous learning and teaching, quality, and knowledge retention by organisations. However, these factors cannot be standardized, unlike manual productivity. In order to derive optimum performance from knowledge workers, knowledge management becomes essential; knowledge management is essential to develop organisational intellectual capital (Newell et al, 2000; p.16). Davenport (1997) defined knowledge management (KM) as ‘the systematic process of finding, selecting, organising, distilling, and presenting information in a way that improves an employee’s comprehension in a specific area of interest’ (Kayama & Okamoto, 2004; p.110). To acquire knowledge information is essential. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), ‘information provides a new point of view for interpreting events or objects, which makes visible previously invisible meanings or sheds light on unexpected connections. Thus, information is a necessary medium or material for eliciting and constructing knowledge. The four critical activities of knowledge management include acquiring knowledge by learning, creating or identifying opportunities to learn; analyzing knowledge by assessing, validating or creating value to the information gathered; preserving knowledge by organising, representing or maintaining the information; and using knowledge by applying, transferring or sharing the information (Watson, 2003). In knowledge management context studied in organisations, two kinds of knowledge that are recognized include tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. The former refers to the knowledge gained through experience and intuition, which cannot be verbalized and is applied in all decision making situations; the latter refers to codified or captured information that can be reproduced through documents, reports etc and easily communicable (Davenport & Prusak, 2000). Tacit knowledge encompasses know-how that individuals possess, which can be of great use when transferred to others. Transfer of tacit knowledge requires practical demonstration, training and counseling; whereas explicit knowledge can be written and explained. Knowledge workers require high degree of autonomy that allows them to apply their skills and be innovative. These workers produce best outcomes in good working conditions and under good leadership. Attributed to their unique skills and valued knowledge, it is difficult to find such workers in the market. Firms that employ such staff are referred to as knowledge-intensive firms, which can be of different types based on their business strategy, like, client-based, problem-solving or output-based (Lowendahl, 2005). Lowendahl (1997) emphasizes on input knowledge, activities that help in applying the knowledge and output as key elements in delivering intangible solutions to client problems and results in profits. Moreover, autonomy and decentralized decision-making are essential in KIFs (Jasimuddin, 2006). CIPD (2000) report indicates that human resource policies and practices play a critical role in knowledge management and keeping knowledge workers motivated. The primary contribution of HRM is the long-term development of skills, culture and capabilities within the organisation (CIPD, 2000; 57). KIFs and knowledge workers face a variety of challenges. For instance, knowledge workers have distinctive roles and responsibilities, which make it difficult to grade workers on common measurable targets. Secondly, deriving maximum productivity from knowledge workers is a challenge (Drucker, 1999). Integration of operational objectives with organisational strategies is a complex process (Legge, 2005). Method: In order to assess knowledge sharing and organisational learning practices in this setup, semi-structured interviews were conducted with employees at all levels that included front line executives, team leaders, managers, and divisional manager from each function. The face-to-face interviews were more subjective and attempted to involve different perspectives, views, complaints, feelings and feedback from individuals. The questions were focused on broader aspects like what, why and how of various learning processes, communication methods and knowledge sharing practices. Based on the responses, information obtained was interpreted, keeping in mind the context of the subject. All the participants were explained about the process and purpose of the interview in a way they understood. Prior information was provided to the participants regarding the time required, purpose of discussion, and protection of confidentiality. Inferences from these discussions have been compiled in the form of report based on framework of themes that were explored. Key findings from the interviews: Frequency of communication between leaders and their subordinates varied at all levels. While most of the front line executives reported very frequent interaction with their respective team leaders, their interaction with managers was much lesser. Team members approached their leaders for complex query resolutions and other issues. However, executives rarely found it necessary to approach managers for process-related issues. However, interaction between team leaders and managers was mainly based on service level targets and other management-related issues. The same reasons were reported by managers regarding their interaction with superiors. Another important communication process reported were performance discussion reviews that happened once in a quarter at all levels during which performance issues were discussed with subordinates at all levels. Individuals at all levels were asked about their feedback for management and frequency of such feedback surveys. It was learnt that yearly surveys were conducted that collected feedback from employees on all aspects of their employment, like job satisfaction, compensation, facilities, learning and development, training etc. Managers’ response to learning and development and training varied in different departments. Few front line executives and leaders expressed need for more training on soft skills and leadership development, respectively. Managers used information gathered from these surveys to improve upon existing work and learning processes. For instance, consequent to last survey, the organisation implemented learning portal that was accessible by every employee; this portal was managed by the learning and development team and provided access to all work-related information as well as other information such as organisational initiatives, performance, future plans etc. This portal also provided platform for people to express their opinions on various management initiatives as well as propose new ideas. Individuals at all levels were questioned on their involvement in management-related or critical decision making processes. While executives and team leaders did not have much input, managers involvement seemed limited to process-related aspects. Divisional managers were more involved in customer-related issues and organisation-wide management decisions. All members were questioned on their goals and objectives. All members clearly understood their objectives and measurement metrics; yet, some dissatisfaction related to the way their performance was measured was expressed by few team leaders that worked in complex call processes like customer escalations and retention calling. Two common responses across all levels included customer satisfaction and quality standards. Front line executives’ training was conducted by function-specific trainers that included process trainers and soft skill trainers. Team leaders’ involvement in training activities was also reported. Team leaders were majorly involved in cascading updates related to new products, change in services, new clients etc. Frequency and nature of interaction was assessed based on questions related to team meetings and nature of meetings. Employees at all levels participated in regular team meetings. Team leaders conducted meetings on a daily basis to share process-related updates and address issues/concerns faced by the executives while interacting with customers. Every new learning experience was shared in the meeting so that others gained the knowledge, and the same was documented. Every process had process documents that explained every aspect of work done. All updates were documented and stored, along with backup. These updates were regularly updated on the learning portal by training staff to provide easy access to others. All management related information was stored by the managers while process related information managed by the team leaders and members. Aspects of professional growth and opportunities for growth were assessed based on questions related to promotions, skill enhancement trainings, taking on additional responsibilities and learning opportunities etc. Front line executives reported dissatisfaction in terms of promotions and additional responsibilities. Team leaders were not aware of any growth opportunities planned. Managers felt their growth depended upon expansion of business. Divisional managers did not respond. Most of the team members felt the need for skill enhancement in spheres like call handling skills, time management skills, leadership skills, writing skills, and analytical skills. Team leaders felt leadership skills would help them manage team’s performance better. No double-loop learning was reported because front line executives and team members reported lack of time to take on additional responsibilities that will help in learning other skills. Double-loop learning breeds innovation, critical thinking, and thus better decision making (Argyris & Schon, 1980). Discussion: These responses indicated adequacy of knowledge management practices followed at the organisation in subject. Practices such as information accessibility, documentation, update cascade, team meetings, learning and development activities foster knowledge and information sharing. Secondly, orientation towards quality and customer satisfaction form strong base for knowledge management. Davenport emphasizes the need for quality movement as an effective movement towards knowledge management (Davenport & Prusak, 2000). Knowledge transfer practices promote learning of process knowledge as well as tacit knowledge, which helps in improvement of overall performance. This is also a feature of team working, which is critical to knowledge management (Senge, 1990). Nevertheless, certain gaps were found that hinder organisational learning and knowledge management. For instance, involvement in critical decision making processes was limited which means less participation will block innovation and also affect motivation. Evidence for flexibility in terms of working was not found; flexibility is an essential element of knowledge workers (Jasimuddin, 2006). Gaps in self development were also evidence to some extent based on responses related to training activities. Such issues become barriers to organisational learning because organisations depend on employee competencies and cognitive skills to perform knowledge work (Newell et al, 2009). Moreover, inappropriate mapping of metrics to processes causes serious concern among few team leaders, which indicated inappropriate integration of performance metrics with strategic objectives. In such situations, deriving maximum productivity is a challenge and it also affects worker motivation (Drucker, 1999). Lack of expertise to take on greater responsibilities is a serious impediment to knowledge working. Knowledge workers rely greatly on autonomy and motivation for optimum performance output. Moreover, knowledge work requires innovation to continuously improve. In such a situation, if knowledge workers do not get enough time, resources, and support to innovate their motivation gets affected. A greater sense of professional affiliation would be especially valuable given the varying levels of the worker roles (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; 110). Conclusions and recommendations: In conclusion, knowledge management has become the key to success of most of the organisations. Knowledge intensive firms rely on human capital than other capital for success and sustenance of performance and knowledge-based firms thrive on input of knowledge and learning into their human capital. Effective knowledge management should include effective communication, leadership, HRM, and organisational systems besides appropriate integration of operational objectives with strategic goals of the organisation. Situations that identify gaps in knowledge management in the present context can be addressed by modifying few management practices. Opportunities in the form of skill enhancement, participation in management-related activities, encouragement for innovation etc provide continuous learning mechanisms to individuals at all levels. Rewarding individuals with additional responsibilities based on their performance can boost their motivation and commitment. Career succession is critical to employee motivation, especially in volatile knowledge industry; hence career succession can be used as a tool to improve learning and motivation by enhancing employees’ competencies. References Argyris, C and Schon, D. 1980. What is an organization that it may learn? In Lockett, M and Spear, R’s (eds.) Organisations as Systems. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. (pp:128-37). Ambriola, V, Bertagnini, S and Pratesi, L. 2003. Knowledge Management in Public Web Call Centres. In Wimmer, M. A’s (Ed.) Knowledge management in electronic government: 4th IFIP international working conference. New York: Springer. (pp:192-202). CIPD. 2000. Investigating knowledge management. London: CIPD Publishing. (pp:47-64). Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. 2000. Working Knowledge: How organisations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Drucker, P.F. 1999. Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review XLI: 2, 79-94. Drucker, P.F. 2003. From Capitalism to Knowledge Society. In A functioning society: selections from sixty-five years of writing on community, society, and polity. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. (pp: 157-168). Jasimuddin, S.M. 2006. Organisations in the knowledge-based society. In Rahim, M’s (Ed) Current topics in management. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Kayama, M and Okomoto, T. 2004. Knowledge management framework for Collaborative Learhing Support. In Abecker, A, Dignum, V and VanElst, L’s Agent-mediated knowledge management: international symposium AMKM 2003. California: Springer. (pp: 107-117). Legge, K. 2005. Human resource management: Rhetorics and realities. Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lowendahl, B.R. 2005. Strategic management of professional business service firms. 3rd ed. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. (pp: 32-45) Newell, S, Robertson, M, Scarbrough, H & Swan, J. 2009. Managing Knowledge Work. Palgrave: Basingstoke, Hampshire. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Double-day. Watson, D.I. 2003. Applying knowledge management: techniques for building corporate memories. California: Morgan Kaufmann. (pp: 3-22). Read More