its like very nice of them if they do it purposedly.. putting stroner focus on knowledge sharing, like on empowerment and human focus but is it full definition?? what about creation, innovation and acquiring knowledge.. still knowledge sharing is very important and applies to many knowledge managing strategies.. i would say that those who just "facilitate and support" knowledge sharing are knowledge managers..

i read very nice article about starbucks and they explained there that Starbucks made a similar movement chcnging their employees names into partners and headquaters into starbucks SUPPORT center if i understand this issue correctly

Knowledge bases you mentioned could be described as effective method of knowledge sharing.. knowledge base for sharing corporate knowledge just like any strategy where knowledge is transferred from one employee to another.

I wouldnt be so sure on the other hand of others lets say employee training by an outside partner, creating knowledge. i also heard os strategy of managing knowledge assets.. but its just about trying to see whether management fits to sharing definition.

and i would also agree with concerns about lack of control in age of empowerment (i know some harvard professor has wrtitten a book about it and moreover i saw research made also in harverd which prooved on some small group that employees who are empoered in banking have tendency to give more risky credits). What are the solutions? the same concerns could apply to this new concept of organization based a bit on wikis and web 2.0 concept.. what with control in this business model?? is strategy about giving people common focus and goals? what abut budgets etc..

I read that article;-) and its just about knowledge sharing for knowledge creation and IBMs own web 2.0 .. Its like very good for stimulating down-top knoledge flow and knowledge creation so i guess that there will be some management except of that in IBM back office;-) i remember some classical article by Nonaka about Toyota where employees were allowed already to leave some letters with ideas in some box.. This system is much more effective

Tom, in my opinion knowledge sharing sounds too passive. As knowledge managers we may build a knowledge sharing application so that people can share their experience, we encourage communities of practice so that participants can share tacit knowledge, and we may actively share best demonstrated practices. All this, however, falls within the context of management. I may not be overly directive when I allocate resources to experiment with blogs or wikis, but part of my responsibilities as a manager is to ensure knowledge sharing occurs and that it yields results. Experimenting with face to face interactions, repositories, Enterprise 2.0 applications is part of the process required to enable knowledge workers with the content and tools to do their jobs. As a manager, I require that people architect the technology approach so that we maximize the value of the resources we spend, that it fits within the strategy of the firm, and that the effectiveness of the solution is measured and evaluated. This sounds like management not like knowledge sharing.

Personally I have always maintained that there is no need to manage competent professionals, they can use thought leadership, support, sounding board for discussion, but not management. A few times my team members suggested to use a generic wiki as a project/knowledge management environment, which puzzled me and when I agreed to experiment, the results were pathetic. I have described my experiences and the lessons learned here -
http://evolutionofbpr.com/human-aspects-of-project-management/

Something I really liked about Thinking for a Living is that it describes distinct approaches and tools for different kind of work scenarios. It helps you create mental models from which you could leverage based on the factors in any given situation. With these or any other tools that you have available the key is to understand which one is appropriate "for the task at hand"... and "reflection in action" will accelerate the process to get you there.

Surely Knowledge Management is just a descriptor of how we implement/encourage/facilitate Knowledge Sharing?

The two terms are complementary: one describes the organisational processes required to make the other happen.

(KM isn't just KS, by the way - but it's frequently one of the most important and desirable outcomes of KM.)

They just seem to be using the word "management" as a proxy for "poor management".
As they say: ABUSUS NON TOLLIT USUM

If they asked these people what behaviour they did want it would probably just come down to what we call "good management". Whatever you call it people and knowledges need to be managed.

As Tom suggested knowledge has to be managed for proper sharing. Knowledge management can be called as
- method of structuring the knowledge in methodical way.
- To relate and integrate them , so that they are productive.

But the real issue is managing knowledge management workers ? Managers discuss about to get rid of "control and command" and to bring in more open culture. But as the organization grows bureaucracy and steep hierarchy of command creeps in. This in turn de motivates the knowledge workers . What's the solution for this ?

Santhosh.

Granted command and control is a stereotype, but it's one that has all too strong a basis in truth. I think we all know managers who see compliance as an end in itself.

It's not that knowledge workers can't see the value in appropriate controls, but there's a need for some "fair process" here. Let's articulate the risks that we want to mitigate, the positive outcomes that we want to encourage, and how our controls are going to get us there. Let's allow knowledge workers to propose controls to meet those goals in ways that support their workflows.

If knowledge workers see the controls as illegitimate or too onerous, we'll just create a work around which will be another informal process that isn't being optimized.

An excellent piece that poses an interesting question/perspective. As for leaders, I agree that "command and control" is an outdated approach. On my own blog, I have written about a leadership approach called "democratic dictatorship" which can be viewed here:

http://ninasimosko.com/blog/2008/06/27/democratic-dictatorship-2/

As I note in this piece, ultimately leaders must live by the expression “it is better to be respected and not liked than to be liked and not respected.” And, while this is perhaps somewhat reminiscent of the "command and control" approach, I believe that in today's business environment, it is truly different at its core.

Management, in my eyes does not mean command and control. Having served in the British Army the three things are very distinct. Management is taken to be one of the softer skills - being able to deal in a non confrontational way with someones bad behaviour for example or to be able to apply clear thinking to a complex problem and implement a solution. Command and control are more to do with leadership. Command is a post of great responsibility, one where decisions popular or not are made based on the sound analysis of a problem. Control is the set of boundaries applied to that decision which enable progress to be measured and allow the plan the greatest chance of sucess. The controls applied are dependent on the level of risk that can be accepted and the degree of autonomy that is required by the elements working on the plan to achieve their objectives.

Command, control and management are all required in different mixes to achieve different ends, they are all multi faceted and it is the job of the leader to decide what that mix should be and communicate that effectively.

In terms of knowledge sharing, tea and toast is the way forward...

I'm with you, Tom. Let's ban automatic equating of command and control with management (except where specific management instances are indeed command and control, which indeed there are examples). This equating is at best lazy thinking and at worst just a way to start a false argument. It got me to thinking about a discussion I had about improvisation (or "improv", for short). I had taken a great management (natch!) class a little while back that taught improv as a tool for strategic thinking and decision making. A key a-ha lesson for me was that I equated improv with chaos and free-form activity, which turned out to be false. I blogged about it at Yes-and and said I found out instead that improv has clear rules and structure which are the keys to making it work. Much like management can work with clear rules and structure without preventing creativity or open sharing.

Well all of this is very nice...on paper, but when I once studied an organization (I lived with them for a year to observe)...Leo Burnett Advertising in Chicago for exactly this type of behavior all I found were cubicle and corner office dwelling execs thinking, "Now why would I want to share that idea with him or with her? If he or she gets promoted before I do, my wife won't speak to me for months!" Numerous times I'd overhear account supervisors and directors on accounts like Kellogg or McDonald's say to subordinants "go over to another account like Maytag, Oldsmobile or Philip Morris" to "see if they had anything that worked for them." They always came back empty handed. It was empty/hollow thought work. With that type of thought and knowledge sharing or management it's easy to see why brands like Oldsmobile ultimately go out of business.

How poignant... Thanks for the inspiration. Related to this is the false (or at least reductionistic) dichotomy between "leadership" and "management". The sad reality is that for some, command-and-control is the only way to "manage".

If IBM wants to change from knowledge management to knowledge sharing, let that be. Perhaps their KM is limited to facilitating sharing... so why not? I agree with Tom that to interpret "management" in KM as "command and control" is overly simplistic and betrays a lack of proper understanding of what KM is all about. Real KM involves formulating a carefully thought of knowledge strategy (see Zack, 1999 California Management Review), and impementing it all the business and functional levels in the form of appropriately designed systems for knowledge creation, sharing, storing etc... Rather than debate about whether management is equivalent to command and control or not, I suggest that IBM can be asked to rethink the appropriateness of their new term and its limited emphasis...

I'm a CEO of a smallish company of about 300. We don't call our leaders managers. Why? I believe it's disrespectful. Call it trivial, but language matters. My awareness the language became heightened by a couple of books. Clotaire Rapaille's book The Culture Code, and Frank Luntz's - Words that work.

Management implies that one requires 'managing' which implies a deficiency of sorts. People generally don't need managing. They need framework, guidelines and good leadership. However, 'management' often creates a command and control environment where management is 'needed'. Hence the circle.

Leadership is respectful - and the language is a constant reminder of the culture. It won't create culture, but it's one of a multitude of small steps which make great companies.

Management of knowledge or other inanimate objects makes sense. When people are involved, they require leaders.

Tom,

I absolutely agree. A “philosophical repositioning” via a name change is fine if it is considered symbolic of change or growth but using “artifacts” (for lack of a better term) to represent change will not simplify the underlying process or issue. This reminds me of WAL*MART’s (oops I mean (Walmart*’s) recent logo change. While I don’t think it is a bad idea to signal a radical revamping with the unveiling of a new logo, the company must realize that a logo change alone will do nothing to change the actual state of (or people’s perception of) their customer service, facilities, etc. Similarly, simply changing the name of “knowledge management” to “knowledge sharing” will 1) not change the way knowledge is shared on its own and 2) does not recognize the complications that may arise with “knowledge sharing”. I’m definitely a proponent of open innovation as well as the concept of encouraging innovation from the bottom up; however, being able to guide that idea generation in a way that is meaningful and then figuring out how to extract the gems from the amassed ‘list’ of ideas most certainly requires management. In fact, it seems to me that “knowledge management” and “knowledge sharing” are almost two entirely different things.

Juhi
www.brilliont.com

As a former IBMer, I know that culturally Management can equal Command and Control there. Chris' comments reflect a shift that can also be seen in the Lotus suite of collaboration tools. What will be interesting is to see the balance that IBM achieves - as I doubt the refocusing means a complete abandonment of the traditional "managed" knowledge programme.

Any manager who does not command their subordinates to accomplish specific tasks is not doing their job as a manager. Their ought to be dialogue and the manager may be influenced by the subordinate's response. But if the employee does not udnerstand that the manager can tell them what to do, what do they believe they are giving in exchange for their salary? And every manager must control their people. A manager who lets a subordinate get away with abusive behaviour, for example, is not doing their job. The question is what does "command and control" mean if it so cearly refers to some unacceptable behaviour?

Someone (I forget who) once referred to Business Process Reengineering as "the fad that forgot people." I believe KM is on the verge of becoming "the fad that forgot people, part deux." There has been a lot of hair splitting and nit picking recently about what KM is and what it is not. Much of these aforementioned blatherings appear to be self-serving and agenda-pushing, and overlook the fact that without people there would be no K for anyone to M.

One of the provocative comments from Tom Davenport is that we should ban the term "command and control". I agree with half of that statement: Ban the term "command". No one likes to be told what to do. In fact, my husband and I have a pact to never say "should" to one another. We might say, I think it another possibility is... But, in business, we need to know who is in control or what processes are controlling the revenue growth or the cost reductions or the human capacity development. Tom always has a way to make me think through what is important.