• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

The 'knowledge society'

by Simon Longstaff

In recent times there has been growing argument in favour of developing organisations, and in particular corporations, that can harness the power of knowledge and embrace what Peter Drucker has heralded as the ‘Knowledge Society’. While debate about the nature of knowledge has taxed philosophers for centuries, a few simple distinctions (that largely appeal to common sense) might be considered useful when looking at the issues raised by theorists like Drucker.

A familiar distinction is that made between 'theoretical' knowledge (which is knowledge for its own sake, or knowledge about things over which we have no control, such as the number of rings around Saturn) and 'practical' knowledge (which is knowledge about things that we can affect, such as how to make a clay pot on a wheel or what makes an internal combustion engine work). At another level, people recognise a difference between knowledge about 'facts' (knowing that something is the case) and knowledge of processes (knowing how something is done).

Other distinctions come to mind. For example, some claim to know things only when the methods of science have been passed. Others claim to know things intuitively. Still others claim to know things because of tradition, revelation or through an act of faith. As can be seen, there are all sorts of ways of ‘knowing’. And this, in itself, raises questions for those who would argue in favour of the 'knowledge-based' organisation.

While there are questions about what knowledge actually is, there are also questions to do with its value. Some argue the case for knowing things, for their own sake. They argue that the disinterested pursuit of knowledge (even so-called 'useless' knowledge) is to be welcomed. For my part, I agree that it is an important mark of a civilised society that it support pure research.

Yet, experience tells us that there is limited advantage in knowing facts or processes without also being able to apply them in sensible ways. The point is that merely knowing something is not enough if we are to make positive headway in a changing world.

While recognising the importance of the kind of ideas being advanced by people like Peter Drucker, I would respectfully suggest that the current enthusiasm for 'knowledge-based' companies may cloud our perception of an even more important development - a development that is only just starting to stir the consciousness of the management community; a dawning realisation that the successful organisation of the future will need to be wisdom based.

By 'wisdom' I refer to a capacity to discern what is appropriate in a given situation; to see things as they really are; to make a true measure of people and events. Wise people are economical and accurate in their assessment of circumstances and are able to ensure that facts and processes are applied in ways relevant to the particular circumstances. Rather than being carried away by technique, those with wisdom exercise judgement based on a mixture of experience and mature reflection.

Organisations lacking wisdom are prone to a predictable range of ills. For example, they are easily seduced by the latest fad - applying novel management or production techniques without critically assessing their relevance. They are like people who combine intellectual brilliance with a complete lack of common sense. Blinded by science, they disregard all warning signs and press on until disappearing over the precipice of experience.

Thinking about the difference between knowledge and wisdom helps to explain a phenomenon that troubles those of us who argue that it is worth allocating resources to the task of building an ethical culture within organisations. It is difficult to explain why it is that, having made sincere efforts to promote change, organisations can still find themselves having to cope with grave ethical lapses.

Some companies have spent a fortune developing sophisticated ‘ethics’ programmes. In some cases, the process has been almost copy-book in its facilitation. Underlying principles have been identified, the interests of stakeholders taken into account and a core set of proscribed and prescribed behaviours have been defined. Compliance officers have been appointed and every new employee inducted into the ethos of the company. Indeed all of the knowledge and technique for encouraging ethical behaviour has been applied.

In due course 'virtuous' corporate behaviour comes to be second nature for most, if not all, of the company's personnel. This may seem to be ideal. After all, a company with people, each of whom has a disposition to be ethical, is unlikely to go wrong. And that, precisely, is the problem!

There is nearly as much danger in having personnel who are virtuous, simply as a matter of habit, as there is in having people who act unethically because “that's just the way we do it around here”. A 'knowledge-based' approach to ethics can lead, quite inadvertently, to a smug certainty that all of the answers to the 'tricky' questions are known, that there is always a technique at hand to resolve what others (who know less) would regard as a perplexing ethical dilemma.

People with wisdom are alive to the vagaries of ethical decision-making. Drawing on a type of experience that cannot be learned, they avoid the error of trying to make each new situation fit within a pre-defined set of categories.

And so it is with organisations, too. Wisdom based organisations will not walk blindly into ethical death-traps. This is not because the ethical landscape will become any more easy to traverse; it will still be a place of greys rather than blacks and whites; a place full of the boggy terrain of conflicting principles and ethical dilemmas. However, an orientation towards wisdom instead of mere knowledge will make people alive to the limitations of technique as a way of securing certainty in this inherently uncertain domain of human being.

discuss this article

---