Working in a Knowledge Whirlpool?

I’ve noticed that there is a flow to the knowledge that enters a company.  Imagine with me if we could actually see the knowledge that our teams acquire, would there be a pattern to its flow?  We would see if it stays attached to certain people or if it diffuses throughout the organization?   If the knowledge were smoke it would be an easy visual.

 

We’d see the smoke sticking to certain people or flowing out of certain people depending on if they are teachers or secretive/ poor communicators.  Then think company-wide, how would our “knowledge smoke” flow?  The knowledge may enter the company through experimentation, it may enter the company through a certain publication or text-book, it may enter the company through a new hire, but what is particularly important is how the knowledge flows once inside!

 

On some projects that I have been a part of, the knowledge enters the company through a variety of channels, experiments, literature searches, new hires, textbooks, but once inside the smoke finds itself in dozens if not hundreds of whirlpools.  The knowledge flows in one direction (up to managers) if at all.  At the start of each whirlpool is the key scientist, engineer or technician doing the learning.  When I say learning I am not only talking about using science to invent the next product or process.  Learning happens in a variety of ways; experimentation, internet research, telephone calls with vendors, employees attending conferences to name just a few.  Learning occurs all of the time, knowledge is entering our companies in a wide variety of ways and where that knowledge flows after it is in the company matters almost as much as getting the knowledge in in the first place.

 

Healthy organizations have free-flowing knowledge!

 

In a healthy culture employees are not incentivized to hold knowledge hostage until they get credit or rewards of political favor.  The knowledge that enters our companies may enter through one narrow channel but once inside it should disperse easily through a variety of channels.  Whirlpools exist when water is flowing into one narrow path, unlike a whirlpool large portions of the Nile river in South America flows slowly in over a wide area, the Rio Negro is a river basin in Brazil that flows like this.

 

The water flows everywhere giving life to huge area of land mass.

 

Does the knowledge flow in your company like whirlpools or like the Rio Negro in Brazil?

 

I see three exciting ways that a company can free up its knowledge flow.

 

  1. Use social enterprise business software, recent products that are coming out designed for employee connectivity and collaboration are amazing.  I have been researching the many options for this and I can’t recommend it enough, it is well worth the investment.  I use social business tools, and am amazed at its potential to change how companies function, like facebook and twitter have been I believe that these software tools will be company game changers, a driver of cultural change… if they are embraced.
  2. Do not reward secretive, competitive employee behavior, this is difficult because many times the most secretive and competitive employees are also the brightest and best performers.
  3. Reward teachers, reward those who are generous with knowledge internally. The effect of this shift in what leadership values in regards to knowledge sharing will gradually change the company culture.

 

What other ways can leaders “un-stick” the knowledge that flows through their organizations ? please share…

Innovation Teams – Categorized by Behavior

I like to categorize teams based on predominant behavior rather than function in order to highlight helpful or unhelpful behaviors for an organization. Below are three common types of R&D/ Innovation teams.

  1. The Siloed Team

  2. The Collaborative Team

  3. The Managed Team

The siloed team has strong technical contributors, they are very skilled technically, they are actively inventing and learning.  The siloed team tends to be competitive internally, the technical contributors hold back their insights and are reluctant to share what they know and what they plan.  This is both a strength and weakness, a strength because it often increases the quality of the science done by the team,  yet it is a weakness for the company because internal collaboration would significantly speed up time to market.

The behaviors of most in the siloed team is a product of both team members disposition and management’s promotion criteria.  The siloed team tends to have learning curves that move with the ability of the individual contributors. Managers often later compile learnings (learnings that are shared up) and then make business decisions. 

The collaborative team is characterized by team members who do not mind sharing what they are learning and sharing credit for team progress.  The behavior of the collaborative team is mostly result of the team members level of maturity and the ability of the managers who oversee it. The collaborative team learns the fastest for the company and ‘get to the point’ of new innovations as fast as possible.

The managed team is the third type of team. The managed team works well with their leadership and enjoys communicating up.  The meanaged team is open to sharing credit and the individuals on the team do not mind making their manager successful. A weakness of this team may be that those who are very strong technically may dislike this type of team and avoid it also corporate bureaucracies can sometimes thrive.

The goal of any science and engineering innovation team is to learn quickly and ‘get to the point’ to where new innovations thrive for the company or university and get there as fast as possible.  The collaborative team typically gets there the fastest. The siloed team can repeatedly learn the same things over again because they don’t take the time to learn from one another competing for that next promotion or award.

The biggest harm created by the siloed team is time wasted, time to market is the key to new innovations for a company.  The ability of an R&D organization to get from siloed to collaborative will have a large impact on how successful the company or university department will be over time, some may never get there and are simply wasting money, they may be the most intellectually talent people around but they are still wasting money.

Do you have tips for making a team less siloed?

I have decided to ignore all comments on this blog due to excessive amounts of spam so please tweet comments to @Colliers2 or email me directly at colliersengineering@gmail.com,

Adam Collier

Celebrity Apprentice and Organizational Sickness

If you’ve ever watched the Television series Celebrity Apprentice you can see what organizational health is not. It is humorous how dysfunctional the “teams” are on this show. 2013 Celebrity Apprentice

toxic

Donald Trump created this show and pitches it as the ultimate interview, he causes contestants to compete with one another then he forces them to work together to accomplish tasks that require leadership skills and teamwork.  Trump himself could not pull this off if  forced to work with this level of back stabbing and competitiveness.  In the real world project leaders have authority and they can fire people.

Omarosa, the ultimate celebrity villain on the show told the producers recently that Brett Michael’s her team captain, who won in a past show, is the project manager so this means that “he has a bulls eye on his back.”  Omarosa epitomizes what this show is becoming.  The rest of the players are not far behind her in this and as the show progresses almost everyone turns on one another.

These highly dysfunctional team dynamics make for great television but make for horrible leadership examples.

I hope that young business people are not taking this show seriously!

The back stabbing the hyper competitiveness the irrational antagonism by some players is disturbing.

To be honest I have worked with people who act like this and they don’t last long in the corporate world.  I hope this show is not creating more of these people in the young business people who are watching. The idea that leaders must undermine, take over, back stab and compete with other leaders is just not true.  Good leaders are willing to follow and cooperate.

Healthy teams work together, healthy teams don’t compete internally, healthy teams do not destroy their project leaders, they work together for a common goal.

I wish there was a show that would teach its viewers about healthy organizations rather than toxic and dysfunctional ones, if Mr. Trump’s teams worked like this he would not be as successful as he is in business.  I notice that his teams display a united front, they help Mr. Trump, they defend him and work to analyze the contestants together.

Do young business people get a twisted view of business leadership due to shows like The Apprentice?

Stay Up To Date With Email

​-

I use & recommend Bluehost, buy your domain and hosting here!

Get Adam’s From His Side Book Here! Its about Church Transformaton from Institutional Church to Living Ecclesia

Visitors

  • 52,738 hits

Connect on Twitter