As we’ve learned, however, knowledge transfer has
proven to be a difficult task for organizations (Levin, 2004). It's more than developing the right
organization chart or simply passing along information (Krackhardt, & Hanson, 1993). It’s building a culture
of trust (Levin, 2004) and leveraging a structure of informal networks that move
“diagonally and elliptically, skipping entire functions to get work done” (Krackhardt, & Hanson, 1993, p.
104).
How can an organization foster this kind of trustworthy,
collaborative environment? According to
Levin, many organizations are already implementing initiatives that provide “training
for and assessing trustworthy behavior through evaluation procedures or by
investing in processes to create a shared vision and language so that trust can
flourish” (Levin, 2004, p. 1487). At my
company, I recently participated in a “shared vision” exercise where we
assessed the current state and forecasted the future state of our leadership
team and overall organization with the goal of creating a common understanding
of roles and responsibilities and building a more trusted, collaborative, high-performance
team for executing our strategy.
The company
has several initiatives underway to bridge the knowledge gap and enable early and
mid-career employees to reach out and connect with more experienced colleagues
to seek the knowledge needed to excel in their current roles and to enhance
their career potential. Many are eager to share what they have learned over the
years. And as reflected in our readings,
leadership plays an absolutely essential role in the process (Ibarra, & Hunter,
2007): “In general, managers should help
employees develop relationships within the informal structure that will enable
them to make valuable contributions to the company” (Krackhardt, & Hanson, 1993,
p. 111). I can tell you that leaders at
all levels at Lockheed Martin are encouraged and trained to model these
behaviors. This week’s literature not only reaffirmed for me that this approach
is a good idea; it's a key driver for the long-term success of the organization.
References
Krackhardt,
D, & Hanson, J. (1993). Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart, Harvard
Business Review, pp. 104-111
Ibarra,
H., and Hunter, M. (2007) How Leaders Create and Use Networks, Harvard
Business Review, pp.1-9
Levin,
D.Z., and Cross, R. (2004) The Strength of Weak
Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer, Management Science 50, pp.
1477-1490.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
I thought your analysis was very insightful. I liked how you applied the concept of knowledge transfer and the readings, (specifically the Krackhardt and Hanson reading) to current initiatives in your organization to train/educate future senior-level employees. I think this serves as a great example to employees of all levels, and how practical and personal knowlede can be used to leverage the success of an organization. Since you talked about the knowledge transfer between senior level employees and mid to lower level employees, what types of knowledge could a lower to mid level employee transfer over to a senior level employee applying knowledge transfer?
Alexandra -- Great question. As I was telling Dr. Neff, mentoring is a major focus area at LM. What's great about mentoring is it's a two-way street, benifiting both mentor and mentee because everyone has something to learn and share.
DeleteSteve, great to hear the readings for this week were applicable to what's going at work. Levin and Cross (2004) note that benevolence based trust is important for the exchange of all kinds of knowledge, but that competence based trust is most important for the exchange tacit knowledge. Have you seen evidence in support of this finding in your own experience at Lockheed Martin?
ReplyDeleteDr. Neff -- Yes. A major focus is on mentoring, communities of practice and on-the-job learning. We've recently implemented a technical coaching program where experts team up with learners to share their tacit knowledge. The process is designed to help speed up the development of future experts.
DeleteSteve, thanks for sharing this. Information sharing is also an issue within my organization, especially that tacit information as Dr. Neff mentioned, and within the network I work closest with, I see it happen for two reasons. First, there's a lack of trust between employees who have been within the company for more than 2 years, and ones that are new. Second, I also see the lack of trust occur between veterans of the military and civilians who have never served. In the case of Lockheed Martin, I assume the issue is mostly a logistical one--how to transfer so much knowledge, explicit and tacit, from one person to another. For my organization, it's mostly about trust. Do you see trust as playing a factor in LM, either among newer employees and more experience employees, or among veterans and non-vets? It's an interesting phenomenon within my organization, so any experience you have in overcoming these barriers, I'd love to hear!
ReplyDeleteHannah -- Indeed, trust is an imperative at LM. I've even heard our execs talk about the need to "be vulnerable" as discussed in Levin and Cross. Let's tag-up soon to discuss more fully.
Delete