SMR President Guy St. Clair is an IAO volunteer, using the SMR International site to report on the organization’s progress and, as appropriate, providing consulting and advisory services. With the former, SMR has published both an e-Profile and a special report about the organization and expects to continue bringing attention to IAO through the SMR’s work with clients and colleagues.

Asked to share some of his ideas about strategic learning in the ICT/KM/knowledge services arena, St. Clair spoke to the IAO  Board of Directors at a recent meeting. St. Clair’s presentation –  “A Second Chance: IAO’s Splendid Mission – Taking Responsibility Seriously” offered talking points for a lively discussion about the role of NGOs in society and, in particular, about how organizations, companies, and individuals can incorporate social responsibility into the corporate and organizational mission. [Click on the presentation title to view the slides.]

Drawing on Peter F. Drucker’s concerns about the “responsibility gap,” St. Clair urged board members to ensure that in planning strategic learning endeavors for ICT/KM/knowledge services, they and prospective partners grasp the critical importance of competitiveness in the development of knowledge competencies. It is only in achieving excellence in their strategic learning products and services, St. Clair said, that companies and organizations ensure the success of training and knowledge-sharing.

Matching strategic learning in ICT/KM/knowledge services – IAO’s purpose – with what he refers to as the “knowledge uptake” in corporate and organizational management (and – more important – in society at large), St. Clair identified “dramatic opportunities for the future” in working with young people. He provided an optimistic picture of IAO’s potential in this area and, with board members, discussed a number of planned objectives for the organization and its future development.

A new special report from SMR International takes a look at efforts to train Africa’s youth in ICT and KM skills.

Linking that effort to recent attention about the “responsibility gap” from the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University, the report (“Closing the Digital Divide: Dealing with Drucker’s ‘Responsibility Gap’ in Africa”) takes the position that management leadership has a greater responsibility than simply achieving organizational effectiveness.

In addressing what Peter Drucker used to refer to as the “responsibility gap,” SMR’s new report has five key points:

1. Current examples of unprincipled behavior in corporate and organizational management seem to imply a moral weakness in society
2. Peter Drucker asserted that managers have a moral obligation to avoid the “responsibility gap” and embrace social responsibility
3. In Kenya, managers and leaders are joining together to provide youth with strategic learning and training in ICT/KM
4. NGOs, the Kenyan government, development and humanitarian organizations, the international business community, and local businesses are working together to achieve this goal
5. These initiatives exemplify Drucker’s assertion: management’s task is two-fold: to achieve organizational effectiveness and to contribute to the common good.

The SMR International Special Report is available at SMRShare. Or the Special Report can be accessed directly here.

Shared both implicitly and directly with clients, colleagues, and affiliates, Building the Knowledge Culture declares SMR International’s intention to use its influence to ensure that knowledge is used both to enable employees to do their best work and to empower the organization to act responsibly in the larger global social environment.

At SMR International, it is our belief that all institutions, including those in the private sector, have a responsibility to all of society. We believe, as Peter F. Drucker wrote in the Preface to Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (1973) that “if the managers of our major institutions, and especially of business, do not take responsibility for the common good, no one else can or will.”

As a management consulting practice specializing in knowledge strategy development, it is our goal to enable and empower organizational leaders for addressing the responsibility gap in management and in society.

One of these especially still hits the mark: the whole idea behind the development of a knowledge strategy is “the futurity of current decisions,” thinking about how current (or recent past) decision making affects what will happen as the KM/knowledge services function proceeds into the future.

Our good friend Peter F. Drucker also brings knowledge workers closer to understanding the true impetus behind planning  knowledge strategy: planning for the future. In his classic Managing in a Time of Great Change, Drucker could be writing for knowledge strategists in 2010 (for could there be a time of greater change than the times we’re living in today?): “Traditional planning asks,” Drucker wrote, “‘what is most likely to happen? Planning for uncertainty asks, instead, ‘what has already happened that will create the future?’”

For Drucker, “strategic planning is not a box of tricks, a bundle of techniques” (Drucker’s emphasis). For our great management hero, strategy development was summed up in four important activities which can be applied directly to the development of knowledge strategy:

• Analytical thinking and the commitment to resources in action
• A continual process of making present entrepreneurial decisions systematically and with the greatest knowledge of their futurity
• Organizing systematically the efforts needed to carry out these decision
• Measuring the results of these decision against expectations through organized, systematic feedback

So there’s the answer to our challenge. Developing knowledge strategy is both prescriptive and descriptive, and the knowledge strategist simply has to position himself/herself to drill down as deep as it’s necessary to go. The task is to find the nuances, the private (or public) agendas, and the organizational goals that will bring forward the information the organization requires for managing its knowledge. Only when the knowledge strategy is developed in an atmosphere that includes both “how-things-are” and “how-things-ought-to-be” can the strategy lead to the results the organization is seeking.

And with accelerated innovation one of the four identified deliverables, you might say (along with strengthened research, contextual decision making, and high-level knowledge asset management) of knowledge services, it seems reasonable to latch on to the idea that the non-profits and the not-for-profit institutions have lagged behind.

Not so. Every day we hear about new venues for the study and implementation of KM/knowledge services, and a fascinating stream in this direction is higher education. Strategy development (ex-”strategic planning”) has long been a mainstay of academic administrative focus, and many companies and organizations specializing in knowledge strategy development have happily found a welcome on the campuses of some of the more forward-thinking universities.

For academics – whether part of the faculty, administrative staff, or having some other connection with the academy (university librarians, for example) – how might to KM/knowledge services be approached? Is it simply a matter of changing the words and phrases? When we define knowledge management with Prusak’s and Davenport’s working with knowledge for the organization do we make it work in the academy simply by defining knowledge management as working with knowledge for the institution?

And for that matter, is the management approach for an academic institution (OK – the administrative approach) the same as it is for a corporation? A research institute? A manufacturing plant? What are the differences? Are they subtle or are they major? Can an academic institution embrace Peter Drucker’s philosophy as willingly and as successfully as a for-profit operation (and, yes it can, for we all know of Drucker’s solid connection with the academy and his great success with charitable institutions and other non-profits)?

The question then becomes simply one of direction, doesn’t it? How can the principles and philosophies behind successful change management, say, in the KM/knowledge services environment be stated for an academic institution? What language do we use? And is that language going to work in other operational structures?

Let’s find out.

Fine. Well and good. You and I and they all know what we mean. We want to set up an environment in which knowledge management and knowledge services are recognized as the critical drivers for organizational effectiveness. We use the term a lot. I find “knowledge thought leader” sneaking into conversations probably more often than is really necessary, because it’s become part of the jargon for me and my clients (the people who’ve hired me, not to put too fine a point on it, so it’s essential that we agree on the basics). But isn’t that preaching to the choir?

What about the other side of leadership? What about the followers, the people who work in the organization who will – when you get right down to it – be doing the heavy lifting when it comes to connecting KM/knowledge services to organizational effectiveness? Should we – as leaders – not give some attention to how these people perceive us, and what they think about what we are doing, and how they react to what we are saying to them about knowledge and the organization – about their organization, the place where they come to do their work? Doesn’t it make sense to think about the organization as a knowledge culture from their point of view?

I think so. And what we need to provide them with is something we assume they already have. We need to give them the confidence that they are going to be participating in something that will benefit them. In the long run, yes, the organization will be a better organization, a more effective organization, but let’s not forget about WIIFM – the old joke line about getting people to take action: “What’s-in-it-for-me?” We can be as altruistic and forward-thinking about KM/knowledge services as we like – and we are, by nature, or we wouldn’t be doing what we are doing – but the people on the line, so to speak, need to be given the opportunity to figure out how their workplace activities are going to change for the better, how they – as they work smarter and have better jobs – are going to contribute to organizational effectiveness.

There are a couple of people we can turn to. One is the estimable Peter Drucker. In Bruce Rosenstein’s book about putting Mr. Drucker’s principles to work in our daily lives, he writes about Drucker’s commitment to things like self-development, self-reflection, self-organization, generosity, teaching and learning, and social entrepreneurship. If we can get the people who are turning to us for advice about how to move the organization to a knowledge culture and at the same time help them have a better work experience, we need to tell them about these, to use Mr. Drucker’s buzz-words that convey so much of what we need in our corporations and organizations. And to get them to do that, to listen to us, we have to ask them to trust us, to take us at our word and be involved in what we are doing. We have to bring them to the table – these knowledge workers – and we have to listen to them as we seek to move toward the knowledge culture. All of which, in Mr. Drucker’s parlance – leads to a “total life” experience.

And the other expert we might listen to? None other than Danial Goleman in his comments about emotional intelligence. Paralleling very neatly (at least to my way of thinking) the direction Mr. Drucker was taking us in, Goleman asks us to think about – and convey to those who report to us – the values associated with self-awareness and self-regulation in the workplace, the ability to convey empathy for a knowledge worker colleague’s concerns about “moving-too-fast” (the one we hear so much), the “lack-of-time-for-new-stuff,” and my favorite: “they-(who are they?)-don’t-want-me-to-innovate-because-it’s-too-disruptive.”

What’s called for here is trust, leading to the new confidence that people will feel when they become knowledge thought leaders for their organization or their department, the confidence that comes from trusting their managers and, at the same time, building on the trust their organization has in them.