Organizational culture, that characteristic trait that makes the difference between one organization and another from its essence, can be understood from two perspectives: from the obvious, it is reflected in the way of dressing, speaking, working, with its schedules, hierarchy, and organizational structure, among others. However, there are things that are not so clear at first sight, which require a little analysis, for example, the relationship with its stakeholders, communication between work teams, the degree of autonomy of leaders to make decisions, the ability of its members to converse and verbalize what they are feeling.
This, what is not obvious, is valuable for all of us who work for the transformation of organizations, because it is there where we take the elements that truly enable or disable the organization’s purposes, where we see if people are prepared for changes, if they accept or appropriate them, and where we will measure the impact of the actions taken.
One of these urgent actions is the need to manage the knowledge that people have about their processes. In this sense, and understanding that knowledge is in them, it would be somewhat difficult, long, and costly to “force” them to transfer their knowledge, to create new knowledge and put it at the service of the organization and its stakeholders.
Therefore, it is necessary for people to take ownership of sharing, acquiring, transforming, and storing knowledge and to see this as an opportunity not only to ensure the functioning of the initiatives generated around their knowledge but also to mean an opportunity for their own personal and professional development. How difficult can it be?
When people are allowed to participate in creation and co-creation processes, shared gains are generated for both the organization and themselves.
So, what will be the challenge for implementing a knowledge management model in the organization from the perspective of organizational culture? First, in my view, there must be coherence between what is said (the culture statement) and what is done (the experience of it). This implies a proper articulation of all processes and people to generate credibility and trust between the organization and its members. Make them participate, convene, provide conversation space, break “imaginary barriers” among its members, think about what you want to achieve and review if the values, rituals, leadership styles, and internal and external communication allow it. Do not forget that finally, those who make things materialize are people. In this sense, it cannot be ignored that everyone has their own story, experiences, preferences, and interests (hidden or not) that can harm the proper performance of the strategies and actions that are undertaken, in this case, Knowledge Management.
Consequently, when people are allowed to participate in creation and co-creation processes, shared gains are generated for both the organization and themselves, since their level of experience puts the organization at a higher level that allows it to be more assertive in making decisions, guiding its strategy, setting challenges, and solving problems in a more organized and fast way.
It is very complex to determine a perfect recipe for knowledge management under the uncertainty of human behavior, but it is the organization’s responsibility to identify if the elements of its culture allow it and to implement the tools, methodologies, and others that make it feasible from a technical standpoint, with the conviction that this will allow them to know and recognize their history, trajectory, and learning to advance towards the consolidation of their organizational project.