Organisational development

In the last few decades, it has often been mentioned in the literature that different elements such as ‘information technology’ or ‘business process engineering’ the are

forerunners of KM. However, the discussion in this section will elucidate that organisational development (OD), shaped by the founder’s philosophy, along with different elements such as the collective, are the fundamental element to enhance and preserve NDKM, especially when an organisation grows. It can be compared with a life-supporting system for knowledge creation without deliberate KM.

Figure 21. Organisational development E = Employee; O = Organisation.

It is important to stress that the understanding of OD, like culture, must change to unfold its full power. OD in an organisation is often understood as a particular department, which focusses solely on the accomplishment of different projects, defined by the top management, to change or improve an organisation. A small poll undertaken by the researcher with random people underpins this statement and shows that OD is sometimes

187

condemned as a purely theoretical issue, not necessary or helpful, isolated from practice and therefore considered worthless.

The findings revealed that instead of limiting OD to a department, it should be considered as a holistic organisational issue or, rather, as a dynamic system where the

employees are invited by the organisation to improve the organisation and the environment as a unit (employee and organisation) and autonomously as an individual to bring in ideas and to better the organisation (I27/Q33.4). Therefore, even if there is an OD department for

implementing different projects and improving the organisation, the whole organisation should have the possibility of developing by proactive and autonomous working employees.

It would be superior to have every employee working towards the improvement of the organisation than a few or an OD department working for the same goal.

In the organisation under scrutiny, the employees do not need to ask for permission or to sign authorisations before they can start with a project for improvement; instead, they briefly discuss the issue with their coach and then commence. This again shows the positive impact of the possibility of working autonomously. Therefore, OD is an organisational and employee related issue; the organisation sets low barriers so that employees can start projects they see as valuable or interesting for the organisation (I18/Q20.5).

Both OD and culture are essential for NDKM and go hand in hand; therefore, they are fundamental elements of this research. At the beginning of the ‘Culture framework’ section, it was explained how important a sound culture is for NDKM. As a reminder, similarly to OD, organisational culture needs the bi-polar interaction of the employees and the upper echelons (i.e. top management). The upper echelon defines and teaches values (founder’s philosophy) which have an impact on the behaviour of the employees (culture) and can finally lead to a high level of knowledge creation. It echoes the importance of Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) objective reality introduced at the beginning of this discussion. However,

188

the values defined by the upper echelon not only have an impact on the employee’s behaviour, but also act back on the upper echelon because the employees show by way of their passion how they appreciate these values, which resonates with Berger and Luckmann’s (1966) dialectical process.

In this regard, Kruse (2007) perfectly explained that culture is not a thing, and,

therefore, a wished culture can not be easily created by implementing different elements such as an open architecture or processes because it is an indirect variable. An indirect variable is an emergent, which is not fixed and contains different values and triggers.

Therefore, the development and improvement (i.e. change) of an organisation has an impact on the employee’s behaviour, which explains why OD and culture go hand in hand.

To achieve a wished behaviour, suitable for NDKM, the triggers, which has an impact on the employees, must be developed and implemented by the organisation so that a wished for culture could be established.

Hüther (2013a) explains in this regard that a society (culture) can only change (development, improvement) if those who create the society (i.e. the employees) are changing. Interpreting this sentence shows that the employees are not only the reason for a culture, but also the main protagonists of changing it. The discussion about change in this section is not intended to confuse. It was elucidated in section 8.2.1 (DNA – the founder’s philosophy) how difficult it is to change an existing culture towards a suitable culture for NDKM. The change mentioned in this section is about the on-going improvement of an existing and suitable culture and organisation for NDKM. In this regard, the upper echelon defines the general conditions on a meta-level and the employees bring up new ideas, improvements, or solutions regarding an organisational problem (micro-level).

The discussion so far shows the complexity of this topic because many elements must be interwoven so that NDKM can emerge. If the employees have the possibility to

pro-189

actively and autonomously improve and work on ‘their’ environment, it finally will have an impact on the society (culture). This is possible on different high-level elements such as communication, relationship, profession, and so forth and must take place and be anchored within the organisation in a certain way.

Kruse (2007) highlighted in an interview that it is essential to inhibit harmonious systems in order improve organisations. A harmonious system emerges when the employees can only follow defined rules and processes like in organisations with a strong hierarchy where autonomous working is mostly banned. In fact, using established and stable systems for the improvement of already existing strategies is what mankind is used to doing (Kruse, 2015). However, harmonious systems lack the elements of diversity, irritation, and

confrontation or as Kruse (2015) called it ‘instability’ and also inhibit communication across the organisation. Lateral thinkers, who are important for an intelligent system, have no possibility of bringing in and discussing ideas or leading to provocation in such a setting. To create knowledge or to be creative at a high-level, it is important to allow individuals within an organisation to distract (approach) others with different ideas and problems (Kruse, 2007).

Disorder is essential for improvement to take place (Original quote, ‘Störung ist […] die notwendige Voraussetzung für das Entstehen neuer Ordnung’) (Kruse, 2015, p. 53). Polanyi’s (1966/2009) explanation of reaching the peak of a pyramid, shown through the example that a new process must take place so that the peak of a pyramid can be reached, underpins the vitality of provocation and diversity (lateral thinkers). Diversity and provocation interrupts harmony, which can lead to a new process (knowledge creation) and only by means of a new process is the next level (e.g. a pyramid) reachable.

Therefore, even if there are process managers or OD managers, each employee should be encouraged to bring in ideas or solutions so that improvement can take place. Such

190

behaviour, named by the researcher as improvement behaviour (i.e. culture), must also be developed and taught (cultured).

Although organisational development is essential for knowledge creation, an organisation has to be aware that too much development can lead to a new barrier

(I19/Q21.1) because employees need time to get used to the new processes or developments after implementation. If too many new developments follow, it can lead to dissatisfaction arising from the excessive stress on the employees, which is a negative emotion against the organisation, and finally hinders and diminishes knowledge creation.

8.2.2.3.1 OD – elements of improvement.

If it is found that a defined behaviour is essential for NDKM, an organisation must frequently focus on its development and improvement. It is important because not only to be innovative, but also because behaviour (i.e. culture) is a very fragile element. In this regard,

‘all socially constructed universes change’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 116) and social change always draws on the behaviour and action of employees. The actions and behaviour of an employee must be guided so that a suitable culture for NDKM can be created. This discussion has some roots in section 8.2.2.1, ‘Cultural framework’ and the discussion about the ‘loss of identity’. Kirchner (2012) discussed the issue of organisational identity in his book Who are we as an organisation (German Title, Wer sind wir als Organisation) and elucidated that in certain situations there have to be ‘identity workers’, who are members who work on the identity of the organisation so that the organisation does not deviate too much from its very core and essence, which is the founder’s philosophy in this research (Kirchner, 2012). Such deviation or loss of identity leads to barriers that inhibit NDKM, and this emphasises the importance of OD.

Understanding the elements of improvement is especially vital for organisational growth because it frequently takes into account not only the needs and problems of the

191

employees, but also the management, as it often happens in other blue-chip companies. It allows the understanding of the employees and their behaviour, which lead to grasping the possible triggers important to improve and establish a desired behaviour and culture. This power should not be underestimated because it enhances satisfaction, passion, cooperation, and trust in the company. It is obvious that the traits named have an impact on the sharing of information and knowledge.

In this regard, the findings elucidated three elements vital for establishing an

improvement culture, namely ‘analysing process’, ‘the employees’, and the ‘focus areas for improvement’ (see Figure 22).

Figure 22. Elements of improvement

O = Organisation; E = Employee; the elements are interwoven and communication is especially important.

First, it is important to stress that communication is not only important for knowledge creation but also for organisational development because conversation ‘takes place against the background of a world’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 152). Although Berger and Luckmann (1966) applied this quote to the current and general reality of conversation partners, which has impact on the content of a conversation; in this research their concept is enhanced with the idea that the reality (or world) of a conversation partner is highly

influenced by the behaviour of others. The behaviour and action of others (i.e. culture) has an

192

impact on the employee and reveals emotions useful or dangerous for knowledge creation and its NDKM, which are displayed in conversations. Emotions such as respect, disrespect, satisfaction, arrogance, trust, and so forth are expressed by means of certain behaviours and uses of expression, which also have an impact on how a member of a society, in this case an employee, recognises the reality.

In this regard, communication objectifies one’s background (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) (i.e. emotion) and reflects a certain culture. Communication can be considered as a mirror, which displays reality. It is worth emphasising that communication is also represented as a fundamental element for this issue, as it is for the founder’s philosophy. It shows that communication is not only important for transferring information, but also for building a setting so that high-level knowledge creation is possible. This discussion regarding

communication can be linked to the issue’s inner picture (Hüther, 2013c), explained further later in this section.

The defined elements shown in the drawing (see Figure 22) also use communication to analyse and objectify the ‘intangible’. Such analyses, in the form of workshops, contain casual conversations; therefore, one also re-interprets past casual conversation to describe and objectify the existing culture, experience, and emotions.

The element ‘Analysis from random employees’ contains a unique process especially developed by the organisation under scrutiny to randomly select actors from the organisation for a workshop, which reflects how the employees perceive the organisation. As this relates to behaviour, actions, feelings, and emotions, this analysis is about the culture of the

organisation. This not only paints a picture of the culture but can also be used as a barometer to check if the building blocks of DNA (i.e. the founder’s philosophy) are still retained in the organisation. This process is not something that is done frequently because, as explained, a

193

culture is an emergent and cannot be developed. It emerges ‘non-deliberately’, and time is important so that a culture can emerge.

The idea behind this process is not only brilliant but also understandable, if one understands what culture is about. If culture is a picture painted by the employees, it is also important to use a random and not a fixed mix of employees to ensure that the employees do not paint a false picture of culture. Therefore, this specially developed process allows for gathering employees with different cultural backgrounds, education, and jobs, which leads to a group with top-managers, kitchen workers, sales managers, receptionists, and so forth. Such a varied mixture of employees best represents the whole organisation and recognises the multitude of individualism. Many managers of the organisation studied in this research did not like this approach at the beginning because they did not understand what the benefit of the inclusion of a kitchen worker or a cleaner might be for such an analysis.

In order to analyse a society with multiple individuals, each employee’s perspective has to be considered to get a complete picture of the organisation. This basic thought resonates with the hermeneutic process and its concept of the part and whole (Gadamer, 2010), which is a process that uses different perspectives to interpret and to paint a picture of a phenomenon. For better clarity, let us imagine that each perspective of an employee is an element of a puzzle. With a single part, one will not able to explain what the picture might be about (e.g. culture), but putting together all the individual parts of the puzzle will finally reveal the whole picture. Additionally, Berger and Luckmann (1966) perfectly explained in already-mentioned quote that ‘What is “real” to a Tibetan monk may not be “real” to an American businessman’ (p. 3). This quote also shows the inner-subjective world, which exists in each society and explains, in a nutshell, that the reality a person considers as real is always different from another person and draws on the concept called horizon (Gadamer, 2010). To recapitulate, a horizon can be seen as a circle defined and filled through education,

194

culture (family, country), lived experiences, and so forth, which make a person unique (individual).

This short introduction shows why the unique process is vital. After successfully accomplishing the workshop and showing the results to the managers who initially criticised the process, the results changed the minds of the managers.

The element ‘analyses from management, coaches and the upper echelon’ is an annual workshop where the management staff paints their current picture of the organisation. They discuss as well as analyse what has to be preserved, improved or pushed with regard to their opinion which always reflects the founder’s philosophy. The interviewees highlighted the statement from the workshop that ‘on this we have to pay attention that we do not lose it (i.e.

culture element) and that we can preserve it’ (Original quote: ‘Da müssen wir schauen, dass das nicht verloren geht, dass das bewahrt bleibt’) (I27/Q33.4).

The element ‘analyses from the whole organisation’ draws on different external awards and internal projects. It is about the feedback from each employee, which is taken very seriously by the organisation and can lead to a multitude of new improvement triggers.

For instance, the organisation frequently attends official competitions such as the worldwide and well-known ‘best working place’ competition, where a lot of organisations get tested. The organisation under scrutiny won the competition several times because they used the received analysis to actually improve the organisation. Additionally, the organisation also undertakes internal analyses like the aforementioned satisfaction poll or the ‘information fishing’ poll, another very prominent conduction, which is about how to improve the information transfer and search within the organisation with the focus on the employees (I4/Q5.39). All the findings are used to improve the organisation significantly. It is worth emphasising that using the ‘feedback’ from the employees to improve the environment is also a form of ‘recognition of individualism’ (see section 8.2.2.3.2.8) or showing respect to the

195

employees as being the most valuable asset of the organisation (employee focus), which will in turn have an essential effect on how the employees respect and see the organisation that highly influences the emotions of the employees, as pre-existing emotions are the most difficult barriers to remove or the most valuable triggers for building relationships and knowledge transfer.

Different actions are defined based on the analyses and such statements, which lead to the element ‘focus areas for improvement’. For instance, a focus area might be something

‘small’ elucidated by way of a poll from the whole organisation, such as improving the information data base, or a bigger project such as conducting several cultural workshops with the whole organisation to bring the founder’s philosophy, which has a major impact on the behaviour within the organisation, closer to the employees again (I27/Q33.4). This example is in line with Berger and Luckman’s (1966) statement that a society will change, and it emphasises the importance of OD. A random discussion with an interviewee (I24), who is biologist and in charge of organisational analysis and improvement, similarly indicates that if guided by the right values, OD definitely plays a key role for knowledge creation because it reduces interpersonal barriers.

The improvement process is a dynamic one because the employees can also bring in their ideas and their concerns (I27/33.4). The employees are invited to share their views and are heard. It is to be noted that developing, transporting, and preserving values, which draw on the founder’s philosophy, must be a recurring and vital process. Culture can change and NDKM is about a special culture filled with the artless KM elements.

8.2.2.3.2 OD – triggers for NDKM.

NDKM, which draws on a certain behaviour, is an emergent and requires different triggers (Kruse, 2007). Beside the patterns already introduced in this research, such as the founder’s philosophy, eleven additional triggers have been identified that enhance or reduce

196

knowledge creation with NDKM. Although some of the triggers are not considered as an NDKM issue in the first line, such as growth (strategy), they have a vital impact on NDKM.

However, understanding the importance of the symbioses between organisation (provider) and employee (convertor) is vital to build and achieve a sustainable and well working NDKM system. Employees aligned with the founder’s philosophy who consider improving the organisation to be their task (behaviour) along with the organisation, which focusses on supporting their employees as well as allowing them to change and to try out something new (experiment), leads to a complex, but intelligent system that draws on a dialectical process.

In this regard and for the sake of clarity, it is worth mentioning the issue of

autopoesis, which has often been used in regard to knowledge creation and KM (Bourgine &

Stewart, 2004; Jelavic, 2011; Johannessen et al., 2002; Kay & Cecez-Kecmanovic; Nonaka

& Takeuchi, 1995). Autopoesis, in a nutshell, is described as a creating and

self-maintaining living system (e.g. cell), and on the surface, this concept also resonates with the findings of this research. Stacey (2001) used the insights from Maturana and Varela’s (1992) magnus opus Autopoesis and cognition for their work Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge and discussed in-depth why autopoesis is not

suitable and found it ‘inappropriate’ (p. 236) to use it as an analogy for knowledge creation or KM. The most important reason why autopoesis is not an appropriate analogy is because the identity of an autopoetic system cannot be transformed; it is not a dialectical process (Stacey, 2001) and therefore, not in line with this research. To recapitulate, this research considers

suitable and found it ‘inappropriate’ (p. 236) to use it as an analogy for knowledge creation or KM. The most important reason why autopoesis is not an appropriate analogy is because the identity of an autopoetic system cannot be transformed; it is not a dialectical process (Stacey, 2001) and therefore, not in line with this research. To recapitulate, this research considers