Author Archive

Some Blue Sky   Leave a comment

SOME BLUE SKY THINKING TO DEAL WITH TODAY’S OLD-FASHIONED WORKPLACE

By Arnold Kransdorff, aka Mr Corporate Amnesia

Picture the pre-Covid-19 workplace. Workers, including professionals and senior decision-makers, were changing their employer every five years on average, requiring businesses and other employing organisations to rehire and induct continuously high numbers of employees, at least in the UK. In the US, staff turnover was even higher. Such short-tenure employment, which was widely reducing individuals’ higher productivity periods for their employers, was already providing a continuous drag on efficient output.

Now, just one year later alongside Covid-19, there’s a huge number of employees working from home. Some are calling them hybrid or furlough workers, all of whom are now even more disconnected from their employers and colleagues. Linked to a corporate base by wi-fi, their new relationship with their employer is disjointed, more confusing and without much hands-on support from their bosses or colleagues. Individuals are now their own supervisor having to make many of their own unfamiliar work decisions. Importantly, there is little or no main office connection, no shared cultural signposts on which to depend and no toe-to-toe leadership or feedback. Many employees are on their own for the very first time. With independence, the environment might seem sweet to some but corporately and personally, isolation is the new reality and the reinforcement of a collegial business ethos is almost as rare as hens’ teeth.

What’s happened to home workers is that employee remoteness is removing the intimacy of the employers’ cultural environment and the awareness of corporate practice, both staples of co-operative progress. This, in turn, impacts the organic journey that depends on building one experience on another. In truth, the mainstay of evolvement has disengaged itself, even for those short termers who don’t end up working away. Both types of individuals are working with just their acquired skills and prior experiences – and, crucially, NOT alongside their current employers’ special and hard-won knowledge and cultural environment. Flexible working and Covid-19 are transforming almost everything by helping employers to largely lose their unique raison d’être. In effect, both employers and employees are working with only a half deck of cards.

However change comes about, uninitiated employees still have to be relatable to their new employer’s pertinent resident differences and particularly their special circumstances. This is usually attempted through piecemeal induction/onboarding that takes up around a fifth of employees’ remaining tenure – and often more – to become fully productive. As it is, it doesn’t mean that because workers are more mobile or remote, an employers’ past or organisational memory (OM) is any less important, or even irretrievable.

Just replace what’s lost

So, what to do? Or to put it better, how to continue to take advantage of being more fully incremental? Instead of having to completely reinvent the workplace, how can an employer make continuous what has become discontinuous – and then provide an organic way of sustaining that change? In management speak it’s called experiential learning (EL), a much-overlooked way of more effectively learning from experience in today’s highly flexible labour market, where the loss of established practice through departures has given our sophisticated workplaces its own pandemic of repeated mistakes, re-invented wheels and other unlearned lessons. For proof, the vaccines rollout notwithstanding, just refer to Covid’s stumbling beginnings that has put the UK’s pandemic deaths and costs at the bottom of the G7 barrel. And where conventional decision making hasn’t yet tried to deal with the departed detail of short-tenure’s exited knowledge and experience.

The most powerful way of doing this is to provide that which both home and flexible working removes. 

Important employees can be provided with professionally constructed and detailed oral debriefings of their departing predecessors that go way beyond conventional exit interviews, typically constructed to try and learn why employees leave. For the more specialist approach, the required debriefing skills have generally been unskilled or outsourced but because of the private and intimate nature of corporate debriefing, a new Toolkit is available for employers to train up suitable in-house individuals to carry out the debriefings themselves (http://www.mrcorporateamnesia.com/). It’s backed up with a mentoring service. 

To accommodate remote working, such evidence could be collected, for example, after 12 months in the first instance or when all short tenure employees are replaced. Delivered to replacements via audio, video or transcript, continuity could then be efficiently replaced for learning to address the missing knowledge and experiences of both employers and their employees. Productivity depends on it.

Posted April 11, 2021 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

OUR CHANGED WAY   Leave a comment

OUR CHANGED WAY OF WORKING NEEDS BUSINESS EDUCATION & TRAINING TO FILL A VERY BIG BLACK HOLE

Are modern managers history phobic?

By Arnold Kransdorff, aka Mr Corporate Amnesia

Stand back from business education and there’s an uncomfortable observation that there’s one glaring aspect of how we DON’T prepare the next generation of businessmen and women to do business. It’s an area articulated by the older group of successful businessmen, management consultants and academics, many of them deceased, but, puzzlingly, not by their modern equivalents.

It’s history, the study of past events. Without it, there’s limited organic progress, imperfect learning from experience and difficult productivity growth.

The coal-face situation is being made even worse by the endemic change in the workplaces from the flexible labour market in which specialist operatives and senior decision-makers are increasingly participating. Since its advent in the 1980s, which the big Western economies have championed with gusto, staff turnover has mushroomed to levels that individuals can have 10 different employers in their working lifetimes, with authoritative forecasts in the US suggesting its number is on its way to 14. In truth, average pre-Covid staff turnovers of up to 28% a year and corporate tenures of less than five years have better accommodated the original motivation for dealing with the fast-moving marketplace – but with a sting in its tail. Employers continually lose the awareness of their own special and hard-won knowledge and experience, which then has to be re-taught by employers and re-learned by new employees. With such high levels of discontinuity across most of commerce and industry comes incessant workplace disruption, the expensive appearance of repeated mistakes, reinvented wheels and – crucially – the inability to efficiently learn lessons, making short-tenure employment a major encumbering factor of production. It explains the difficulties of achieving organic and productivity growth.

Rootless and disloyal workplaces

Such nomadic employment, which represents the single biggest change in the physical workplace for more than 50 years, has produced working environments that are also rootless, disloyal and insecure, places where work-a-day jobs are constantly being disrupted, where employers’ re-employment and training costs are sky high and, because of inherent corporate amnesia, decision-making is less than rigorous. Both Covid-19 and, in the UK’s case, Brexit’s additional staff churn, is only going to make things worse.

Almost without noticing it, what the flexible labour market has done is to dramatically disrupt the workplace at every occupational level across commerce and industry, leaving employers and soon-to-move-on resident employees with no long-term corporate memory, no medium-term memory and only a disconnected short-term memory. And because every employer is different – they’re dissimilar in their culture and special way of doing things – this miscellany needs employees to more quickly and better understand the singular ways each employer works. As it is, short-changed induction/onboarding reduces new employees’ non-productive periods of their short tenures by up to 12 months. Imagine quicker induction and even more productive periods of employment?

In the UK’s educational sector, the history discipline is represented by several associated professional bodies while there are small groups of academics who turn to business to find subjects on which to base their research; also, there is a larger community that focusses on the allied field of economics. But little business history filters down to general business or tertiary education, even post graduate instruction, with the result that the working community at large is essentially bereft of much awareness of their broad business or even sectoral past. The closest UK business history gets to any true business curriculum are references to Britain being the forerunner of the industrial revolution, snapshot accounts of real-life business scenarios known as case studies, usually of well-known non-UK companies, and whatever the media provides. And in the US, one of the several main flagship business educators, Harvard Business School, has removed its former compulsory business history coursework from first-year students.

Alongside this wide absence of economic and business history, corporate history and oral history, which would otherwise be ideal vehicles for HR and KM practitioners to implement effective knowledge transfer to new employees, are similarly neglected. In the UK, for example, more corporate histories were produced at the beginning of the 20th century than at its end. And with a few exceptions like London Transport’s special efforts with its West Indian workforce and a project called “City Lives” that interviewed about 100 men and women from financial institutions who lived through the changes since the Second World War, oral history’s usage is confined to museum exhibits and public relations.

It is instructive that politics, the military, music, art and other professional disciplines, even some crafts, use their generic history in the education of their professions, yet not business. It surely appears that modern managers are history phobic, raising the question why? Are we short of suitable business historians? Have we been taught not to look back, only forwards? Do employers really believe that if they retain one or two of their employees over the long term, their corporate memory is preserved? Has short tenure working reinforced our short-term perspectives? Are we embarrassed by our business performance, so don’t want to be reminded? And/or has business and business education become estranged?

“History provides experience cheaply”

For whatever the reasons, history does have the support of many distinguished achievers, a random selection of UK opinions being illustrative; Sir Peter Parker, a former chairman of British Rail (“ … a missing dimension”), Sir Alistair Pilkington, the late chairman of glass makers Pilkington (“Lack of awareness must put us a disadvantage”), Sir George Blunden, a former deputy Governor of the Bank of England (“Why reinvent the wheel”) and many others. All advocated history as a necessary component of the education of businessmen and women, possibly best espoused by the words of the UK’s first Professor of Business History, Leslie Hannah, “History provides experience cheaply”.

In the learning stakes and without it, the positive transition out of both failure and success is, bluntly, out of sight ….

To address this, employers need only replace what flexible working, time and individuals’ short, selective and defensive memory removes, and allow replacement employees to apply retrieved knowledge and experience to changed circumstances. As a practitioner, my work with oral debriefing has included the ‘how’ to capture tacit knowledge and with corporate history, how to mitigate the largely unavoidable problem of subject company financing around and perceived credibility. Once upgraded, oral history provides employers with their short- and medium-term memory while corporate history delivers their long-term memory. Both smooth workplace discontinuity, reduce corporate amnesia, replace the evidence that would otherwise be lost and provide the opportunity to improve decision making and productivity.

To take advantage of our rich inheritance, business educators at all levels also need to reconsider their aversion to economic history and business history. The reality is that for commerce and industry, and especially in a highly flexible labour market, tomorrow begins with a keen awareness of yesterday.

Ordinarily many managers are reluctant to allow outsiders to capture unique corporate knowledge, so an internet link provides a step-by-step DIY TOOLKIT for employers to do knowledge sharing themselves. Supported by coaching and mentoring, it explains the issues around knowledge ownership and how best to capture and learn from their short-, medium- and long-term organisational memory (OM). The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment.

Posted January 6, 2021 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

A DISCUSSION PAPER: KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN THE AGE OF HIGH STAFF TURNOVER   Leave a comment

THE MIGHTY MANAGEMENT TOOL THAT EDUCATORS AND EMPLOYERS SURPRISINGLY SNUB

By Arnold Kransdorff, aka Mr Corporate Amnesia

Mention the subject to a business academic and you’ll get a full-throated acknowledgement of its value, yet knowledge sharing gets only marginal usage when it comes to applying the most obvious – and potent – of its tools. That topic is business history, a subject that modern educators and especially employers regard as unfashionably irrelevant. 

But change the word to experience and/or institutional or organisational memory and the reaction changes dramatically. They are universally acknowledged as the staple of how society measures its store of knowledge and how holders calculate its monetary value for purposes of their remuneration. As a corporate asset, it is also the home of hindsight, the source of insight, foresight and wisdom, and where the evidence resides for achieving the recognised wellspring of most progress called productivity, realistically illustrated in the UK’s case by official figures that show that the average French worker produces more by the end of Thursday than their British counterpart can in a full week. 

Yet, however it is expressed, they are all indistinguishable from ‘history’ and the subject still gets short shrift. In one of their bigger oversights, both business education and the business world are ignoring a solution to one of commerce and industry’s bigger problems – the constant loss of their unique and hard-won knowledge as their employees join the very flexible labour market. Even before Covid-19, the flexible labour market’s average workplace turnover was around 25% a year in the UK, providing tenures of around five years. In the US average staff turnover is even higher. At fluctuating levels, it’s been going on for more than 35 years.

The biggest corporate knowledge loss, EVER

Imagine how much special knowledge – departmental and corporate – has walked out of every organisation’s front door in just the past eight Covid months? Irretrievably.

Of course, coronavirus was impossible to predict, so there was no time to do anything about it, but what if there was a knowledge transfer way of addressing the more predictable staff turnover in the future, i.e. from the more ‘normal’ passage of staff replacement? 

There is.

It’s buried in several more oversights by business education and employers. By not fully addressing the effects of short-tenure employment, both have shown that they believe a more generalised employee awareness of how the workplace operates is more important than the employer-specific knowledge and experience that takes flight. On the basis of existing induction processes, the continual import of others’ experiences – however related – simply dilutes their own raison d’être and their unique selling proposition (their USP). What has happened is that however much improvements developed from, for example, technology and infrastructure upgrades, educators and employers have forgotten the compounding proposition that the practical application of progress happens organically across the workplace, the building of one experience on another, which something like high staff turnover upsets at ALL hierarchical and departmental sectional levels. Even innovative progress, that which displaces organic development, requires a large measure of historical awareness with which to occur and sustain itself. 

What they have also overlooked is the loss of the unappreciated type of know-how that doesn’t appear in leavers’ left-behind documentation such as emails. Few trainers and educators teach the importance of non-explicit tacit knowledge and even fewer know how to articulate it. Such knowledge – less to do with functioning technical skills, more to do with the employer-specific way of getting things done – comprises the mostly subtle, obscure and intangible issues buried in actual experience alongside the organisations’ cultural ideals, values and special way of doing things. With academics describing it as the source of competitive advantage, its awareness enables learning to take place more efficiently and contextually.

Within this is the same deleterious effect that high staff turnover has on the more sophisticated decision-making methodologies such as Action Learning, just one of the many approaches to high-level problem solving that involves the team-based reflection of prior decision-making and events. The departure of individuals within a group reduces the first-hand evidence that others will need to make more rigorous determinations.  

Cut out these historical components and organic advancement falters, surely an explanation for our difficulties in maintaining productivity growth and ROI.  

The knowledge handover journey

Accordingly, employers need to replace what short tenure removes, NOT for the purpose of repeating past experiences, but for enabling employees, and especially replacement employees, to learn from that experience, however it turned out. Such is the purpose of knowledge sharing with its first-stage operational practice of knowledge capture before it disappears. Thereafter, with the evidence in hand, comes what’s called experiential learning (no, not experimental learning, what many managers usually mis-hear). 

Where such organisational memory can be most effectively applied is in the applications called oral debriefing, which focuses onthe skilful capture ofshort- and medium-term organisational memory delivered in either transcript, audio or video format, and the long-term application known as the organisation’s corporate history. Together they provide the detailed familiarity not made available in either business school tutelage and/or regular induction processes within employing organisations.  

At the business school level, oral debriefing – first championed by the Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Studs Turkel and Professor Allen Nivens, who started Colombia University’s Oral History Collection in 1948 – could come into its own if curricula content included students having to rigorously interview several willing managers in their preferred industries.

Imagine the benefit to business students of acquiring suitable interview skills, understanding the value of tacit knowledge and learning the detail of how managers and/or other specialists do their job? Other advantages would allow role models to be directly accessible and provide a practical shoe-in to the same methodology being used at the corporate level, where knowledge transfer from exiting to replacement individuals could be applied to dramatically reduce the physical and intellectual disruption of high staff turnover. 

The problem of funding

The other knowledge transfer device that both academia and the corporate world could better employ is the established corporate history, whose publication is usually disparaged because their published accounts are almost always financed by the subject companies themselves. Unlike arrangements made between independent authors and their sponsors. for example in projects with other academic institutions, there is little trust around their credibility, their attendance perceived as more public relations than education. Additionally, the authors’ typical writing style is generally unsuitable for a corporate audience, confirmed by the minimal print runs of giveaway copies, usually only to top managers and big clients. Their lack of appeal by modern British managers is illustrated by the fact that more corporate histories were produced at the beginning of the 20thcentury than at its end. 

Regrettably, corporate history’s perceived value is long lost with few modern managers or educators championing their use. For formal encouragement of this form of knowledge transfer, one has to go back to a 1988 speech by Alex Fletcher, MP, a former Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs comments[i]“There is a great deal of material in our schools and elsewhere about how babies are born but there is a tremendous shortage of publications about how businesses are born. Only a tiny number of people know there really was a Mr Barclay, a Mr Beecham, a Mr Cadbury, a Mr Rolls and a Mr Royce, and the marvellous stories of how they created these now world-famous companies. Generations can only understand these examples if they learn and understand the process, innovation and the leadership that made it possible.”

If they were better produced, imagine the benefit to a business student wanting to work in, say, the telecommunications industry if their recommended reading list contained an accurate, updated and readable corporate history of Vodaphone or even 3 UK, one of the smaller operators? Or a budding engineer having access to the story of Babcock International? Ditto the corporate accounts of the UK subsidiaries of acquired British companies and the many other institutions that future employees will join, even the detailed stories of burgeoning start-ups? 

Done well and updated at regular intervals, such long-term accounts of their history would be able to provide more comprehensive information to employees. Accounts could be given to new arrivals during their most receptive period immediately after appointment while predecessors’ oral debriefs could be handed over immediately after induction/onboarding. 

If employers could address the problems they bring, they reduce the time new employees take to get themselves up to speed as well as improving the quality of their decision making. Both require different mindsets as well as skills, issues that comfortably fit within the corporative orbits of knowledge management (KM), human resources (HR), business education and training, and information technology/library. 

So, how to do them properly?

For oral debriefings, which represents an upgrade to the conventional, but lame, exit interviews that are little more than a 20-question survey of why employees leave, the principle of knowledge sharing has to be agreed with sitting employees, who conventionally consider their experience proprietorially theirs. Thereafter, employees and interviewers have to be acquainted with interview techniques and the nature of tacit knowledge. And for corporate histories, subject companies have to address the problem around unavoidable own-project funding, how to choose and manage suitable authors, what their contractual arrangements should include and, if their books are good enough, whether and how to take them out of private circulation and put them on sale to the public. 

The upshot of this proposition is that without a more detailed awareness of experience or organisational memory – ipso facto employers’ corporate history – the status quo survives without too much trouble and, with time, wanes. Knowing it provides the evidence with which to lead change. And the ability to learn from it enables progress to happen more easily. It’s the smart lesson of knowledge sharing in our very flexible labour market.  

mrcorporateamnesia.com provides a step-by-step DIY TOOLKIT for employers to do knowledge sharing themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership and knowledge capture and how best to capture and learn from short-, medium- and long-term organisational memory. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment. 

p.s. Written history IS available to play a part in business education but its exposure to functioning employees is either ignored as a curricular subject or reserved for higher functionaries. The mediums are business history, the historical narrative of the wider business sector and economic history, the even wider study of societal economies. It is noticeable that the generic history of other professions is part of the instruction of architects, artists, medical doctors, musicians and soldiers, even in many trades but, for whatever reasons, not business. 

Posted October 30, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

‘IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT’   Leave a comment

‘IF IT AIN’T BROKE, DON’T FIX IT’: WHY THIS IS BAD BUSINESS ADVICE ON TOP OF POOR LEARNING OUTCOMES FROM FAILURE

When it comes to learning from one’s own corporate experience, there are two main areas of educational focus. The first is from failure and the second from success. If anything, most deliberation is directed at the former, whose triumphs are hardly evident in today’s low-productivity workplace, while success is widely ignored, probably because it is seen as the lesser priority and the wide acceptance of a modern proverb that says if something is working adequately well, leave it alone+.

In explaining the non-learning attitude to success, the Harvard Business Review (https://hbr.org/2011/04/why-leaders-dont-learn-from-success) says that leaders typically make fundamental attribution errors by presuming that it is their talents and business model that are responsible. Decision-makers also give short shrift to the part played by environmental factors and random events while displaying so-called ‘overconfidence bias’ with a failure to systemically examine the causes of good performance.

The truth is that learning can take place from both success and failure for one big fact of modern business life – that both are subject to changing circumstances and environments in today’s fast-moving marketplace. Whether the erstwhile outcome was positive or negative, the change factor means that the decisions related to both need to be reapplied, a reality that requires a resolute mindfulness of earlier experience. Unfortunately, the modern flexible labour market – the average number of employers in a working lifetime is now around 10 in the UK, more in the US – disallows much of this, a workplace transformation that employers have yet to adequately address. Covid-19 will no doubt be adding to these totals as well as providing a new tranche of hard-won corporate knowledge loss.

Even the traditional approach to learning – the post-project review – becomes flawed when employees move on, among them top decision-makers and professionals who are now increasingly more mobile. Their actual input suffers from second- or third-hand recall from remaining employees, which inevitably influences the quality of any reflection and application.

Whilst admitting that success can breed failure by hindering learning at both the individual and the organisational level, HBR’s explanation falls short by disregarding the prime capital factor that the workplace is hampered by high staff turnover’s continual exodus of much prior corporate awareness across the employers’ different/specialist activities. Adding to this, the non-focus on corporate success means that organisations’ opportunity value for learning is actually very low. It’s an uncomfortable explanation for employers’ difficulties around organic and productivity growth, which can be corrected by another management oversight – knowledge sharing.

Short- and medium-term organisational experience – aka institutional memory – can be retained by skilled oral debriefing, most commonly of important departees for the benefit of their replacements, and long-term memory by properly researched and written corporate history, which can be updated on a regular basis. Provided to employees and replacements at induction/onboarding, they can smooth jobs and workplace disruption, prevent new hires from having to reinvent the corporate wheel, provide the lost evidence to allow for proper reflection by the new kids on the block (and colleagues) and improve decision-making.

See mrcorporateamnesia.com ‘s step-by-step TOOLKIT for employers to do such knowledge capture and transfer themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership, knowledge sharing and how best to capture and learn from these mediums. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment.

+ The proverb relating to leaving success out of the learning cycle is attributed to one Thomas Bertram Lance, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in US President Jimmy Carter’s 1977 administration, who was quoted in the newsletter of the US Chamber of Commerce, Nation’s Busines (May 1977) as saying that “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It’s a maxim that’s stuck but as general advice to commerce and industry, it hides a huge learning opportunity.

Posted August 19, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

Open Letter   Leave a comment

AN OPEN LETTER TO OWNERS & TOP APPOINTEES IN COMPANIES AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS ….

Dear Principal Decision Maker,

Capture it – or lose this valuable slice of your intellectual capital

As one of the top decision makers in your organisation. I wonder if I might run something past you concerning the important question of who owns the knowledge and experience that your employees acquire in your employ. When they leave, employees traditionally consider it proprietorially theirs, in spite of the fact that you’ve actually paid for it. In truth, ownership is shared which, if this was acknowledged, offers you an unprecedented opportunity to salvage an important corporate asset that others abandon and which you could use to advantage.   

Given your position, you’re best placed to reference the twin issues of our very flexible labour market and knowledge sharing more authoritatively.  

This is crucial in today’s stop-start and cold-start workplace, where you induct new appointees, you train them, you provide them with the resources necessary to do their jobs and then, typically, they leave for other employers after a relatively short time (average tenure across the board is now around five years in the UK, less in the US). Other than the emails they leave behind, you, the employer, then has no access to any of the other, special non-explicit knowledge and experience with which you could reflect and learn. In effect, flexible working and your nomadic employees are disenfranchising you from your own know-how and stalling potential progress.  

If your more important employees could be dissuaded about their restricted title, imagine the added value you could access from capturing their knowledge and experience before departure and sharing it with their replacements and others? It’s something that employees can also benefit from – by improving their own performance in a much shorter timeframe. We specialise in knowledge transfer.    

I have written a short article explaining the wider issues around knowledge ownership in our highly flexible labour market and how this know-how can be shared. As you’ll appreciate, it’s a cultural issue that is a hangover from the time when short tenure was unusual and the organisations’ practice was always readily available. I have also produced a step-by-step TOOLKIT http://mrcorporateamnesia.com for employers to do the knowledge capture and sharing themselves. It is a serious effort to solve a systemic problem impacting our wider decision-making ability and our organic and productivity growth.

Of course, I’d be happy to mentor you through the process if you’re interested but if you support the idea of knowledge transfer, it would also be helpful if you could comment on this ground-breaking idea.

Collegially.

Arnold Kransdorff,
ak@mrcorporateamnesia.com
Website www.pencorp.co.uk
Blog https://biggernumbers.wordpress.com/
Twitter @mr_c_amnesia

Posted July 20, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

SERIOUSLY   1 comment

SERIOUSLY, WHY THE UNSPOKEN ATTITUDE TO KNOWLEDGE OWNERSHIP HAS TO CHANGE 

By Arnold Kransdorff, aka Mr Corporate Amnesia

Covid-19 aside, something seemingly insignificant is stalling the modern Western-style way of working. It’s around 45 years old and allows commerce and industry to react more efficiently to changing market circumstances but a dark, unintended consequence is offsetting its intended edge. 

What’s happening is that employers are disenfranchising themselves from their own hard-won and expensively acquired knowledge and experience. Specifically, their special learned competencies are constantly being removed and replaced by others’ corporate experiences that have to be reshaped to become relevant. As such, progress is constantly being reigned in; a classic case of corporate backsliding, a one-step-forward, one-step-back scenario imposed by a policy intended to be beneficial.

It’s the embedded, unaddressed and still unacknowledged impact of very high staff turnover, a phenomenon that’s been accelerating as many employees, professionals and even board-level decision makers now actively change employers to improve their remuneration and career prospects. For years such flexibility was seen as a positive influence, a sign that the economy was purposefully responsive to market forces, even an example that other, less flexible economies should follow.   

But consider this. In the two big flexible labour economies, the UK and the US, short tenure employment sees off up to 28% of employees every year. Along with them goes a substantial amount of their employers’ distinctive knowledge and experience. This is happening across the board, involving every level of activity.

While this flight of knowledge unquestionably helps to improve the general level of business awareness – and thus the overall quality of available experience in the wider workforce – much of the actual hard work that individual employers invest in themselves is lost. In truth, this means businesses are inducting and training each other with each other’s irrelevant personal specifics alongside the indirect disadvantage of having to endlessly re-educate themselves with the valuable intellectual capital they’ve already created and paid for.

The impact

The impact can be easily appraised by the escalated costs of re-employment and induction/onboarding, re-training, high workplace and jobs disruption and the increased level of repeated mistakes and other unlearned lessons. Then, the insufficient efforts at bringing new employees up to speed are only fruitful for a much-reduced proportion of their short tenures. It’s the elephant in the room that employers and educators/trainers have negligently overlooked.

What employers lose is not the kind of knowledge that most organisations can retrieve from their walkabout employees’ emails. Rather, it’s the tacit or cognitive part of their knowledge base, the more important ‘how’ and ‘why’ of know-how essential for contextual, reflective and corrective application. This includes the unspoken, mostly subtle, obscure and context-, co-worker- and organisation-specific issues that are buried in the organisations’ actual experience and which academics describe as the source of competitive advantage.

If the wholesale exchange of irrelevant corporate material is unavoidable – i.e. rooted high staff churn can’t be dramatically reduced – what needs to happen is for employers to replace the key part of what all those nomadic employees remove, notably the valuable non-explicit knowledge and experience that greases the corporate wheel. Put even more simply, employers need to transfer the important knowledge and experience of the outward bound to the new kid on the block, which can be done effectively via skilled oral debriefings delivered through the mediums of transcript, oral or video format.

But employees typically insist that their acquired knowledge and experience is proprietorially theirs, so why should they give it up? Up to now, employers have not generally challenged this presumption, a likely hangover from the days when a job-for-life was commonplace and their corporate knowledge would invariably be accessible.

But the flexible labour market has changed everything and its overall effect on the workplace is big enough to impact the corporate viability of the institutions that support our way of working and living. No longer can an employer draw on the full extent of its own knowledge and experience to reflect and learn. So, what to do, specifically how to persuade mobile employees to allow their employer to share their knowledge and experience in the new normal workplace environment of stop-start and cold-start short tenure employment? Covid-19, of course, will aggravate staff turnover even further.

The issue of knowledge title can be addressed with the simple argument that by paying for it, employers have joint ownership of the knowledge and experience acquired during their employees’ tenure, a reality that can be reflected in employees’ conditions of employment by allowing the employer the right to capture and share it.

The truth is that not everyone is going to cooperate with knowledge sharing, among them dismissals and those individuals who are made redundant. But the number of employees who leave of their own accord, including retirees – usually the more important decision-makers anyway – is high enough in today’s flexible labour market to make a difference.

Ordinarily, knowledge capture can be timed ahead of departures and delivered to replacements immediately after induction or onboarding. Or it can be done at regular intervals, say once a year at a quiet time, after important events or, in the case of long projects, during the project cycle. And even if it becomes necessary to offer some sort of disbursement to encourage full cooperation, it is good value to smooth jobs and workplace disruption, prevent new hires from having to reinvent the corporate wheel, provide the lost evidence to allow proper reflection and improve decision making.

Employer-explicit knowledge sharing goes to the heart of how to survive in a flexible labour economy. Without it, the intimate part of an employers’ intellectual capital just spins off uselessly. Employers need to acknowledge its true worth and not let it go walkabout.

Click here: mrcorporateamnesia.com provides a step-by-step TOOLKIT for employers to do the knowledge transfer themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership, knowledge sharing and how best to capture and learn from short- medium- and long-term organisational memory. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment.

Posted July 10, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

HOW TO AVOID THE EXPECTED MISMANAGEMENT   Leave a comment

NEW: HOW TO AVOID THE EXPECTED MISMANAGEMENT OF BORIS JOHNSON’s POST-COVID RECOVERY PROJECTS

 There is one hugely conspicuous promise embedded in Boris Johnson’s latest post-coronavirus recovery plan that details where he’s going to spend £5 billion. His build build build mantra to construct hospitals, roads, schools, homes, prisons, new broadband and other improvements to parks, High Streets and transport facilities involves a lot of individual and big projects – and you know how good we are at doing projects.  

If experience teaches us anything, many of them will be over-budget and/or overdue, which means there’s going to be much poor value for the taxpayer. For the uninformed, the Government’s admitted botch rate is high – in 2018, 80% of projects across various government departments were classed as being either in doubt, hindered by problems or virtually unachievable. A third of projects had costs of more than £1 billion.

Quoting the imposed urgency of the Covid-19 challenge and the Nightingale hospitals and ventilator responses, the Prime Minister insists that the challenge they provided was evidence that the projects could be done right and done better. Infrastructure, he said, had the power to rebuild and repair the country – “and we will”.

So why the scepticism? And what to do about it? An examination of the record is instructive. 

There is a huge amount of detail from the many routine post-project reviews that explain the why, all suggesting – nay confirming – that we don’t learn well from experience. So why are we so poor at this most systemic of management skills?

The reflection aspect of learning

It’s because we don’t know how to properly reflect and learn. It’s not only my opinion. The observation has been around for almost a century, when the celebrated US educational reformer John Dewey, observed that “We don’t learn from experience. We learn from reflecting on experience.” Since then the skill’s been updated by the likes of Professor David Kolb, who has refined the reflection part of the learning process.

The reason why reflection is so important is that the passage of time always changes the reality of prior experience, which means that it forever needs to be applied to new circumstances and environments. It’s a skill that educators and trainers have yet to pass on in sufficient measure alongside the inescapable reality that coal-face decision makers also have to be aware of their employers’ corporate experiences. And the reason for this element’s absenteeism is the unacknowledged phenomenon that accounts for the biggest change in the workplace for more than 40 years – the flexible labour market.

As unexpected as this reason might be, the simple fact of high staff turnover – average tenure is around five years in the UK, less in the US, with project managers among the more mobile – means that employers’ awareness of their unique and hard-won corporate knowledge and experience at all levels of specialism is low. It has walked out of the front door, leaving little for rolling generations of employees to reflect upon and, ipso facto, little possibility of actual learning. The direction of progress is not north ….. 

Because all organisations are different, the lesson this teaches is that non-employer experiences are only partially relevant to good decision making. And that while short-tenure employment provides the opportunity for organisations to more quickly adapt to changing market opportunities, the downside of continuous workplace disruption and corporate knowledge loss needs to be better accommodated by the support of all the players in Boris Johnson’s open cheque book plan, namely the finance provider, the background educators/trainers, the project managers and their subordinates. Which brings up the question of what to do? 

Simply replace what short tenure removes – i.e. the non-email content of important individuals’ know-how known as tacit or cognitive knowledge. This type of knowledge is mainly unspoken and uncommunicated, subtle, obscure and context-, co-worker- and organisation-specific, all of which is buried in tried-and-tested experience that academics describe as the source of competitive advantage.  

This can be done through skilful and specialised oral debriefings and delivered in transcript, audio or video format. For projects, this should be done ahead of departures for the benefit of replacements or, if the project is especially lengthy, at regular intervals during the project cycle.  

At a stroke this helps to smooth jobs disruption, prevent new hires from having to reinvent the corporate wheel, provide the lost evidence to allow proper reflection by both the new kids on the block and colleagues, improve decision-making and disallow so much poor value for the taxpayer. It’s also called productivity, that which the UK is famously under endowed. Alongside his ‘Build Build Build’ and his ‘Jobs Jobs Jobs’ refrains, Mr Johnson has invoked Tony Blair’s Education, Education, Education mantra of 2007. 

Another promise from on high, another under-delivery or …? 

Click here: mrcorporateamnesia.com provides a step-by-step DIY TOOLKIT for employers to do knowledge capture and transfer themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership, knowledge sharing and how best to capture and learn from short-, medium- and long-term organisational memory. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment.

Posted July 3, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

IF YOU’RE HIRING   Leave a comment

IF YOU’RE HIRING, SEE HOW YOU COULD DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR LEAVER’S SUCCESSOR

A Harvard Business School investigation into the hiring of supposed “stars” should get the attention of employers in today’s very flexible labour market that’s been radically upset further by Covid-19’s staff contraction. When organisations are ready to begin hiring again, be aware: the proposed new kids on the block might not be up to their expectations.

In the world of talent acquisition, competence is usually measured by educational qualifications and experience but employers often overestimate the value of the latter. The Harvard study into the phenomenon of corporate poaching, which represents a large proportion of executive and vocational churn, found that after supposed ‘stars’ moved from their old employer, their performances invariably plunged, as did the effectiveness and market value of their new paymasters. Although the research was done in 2004 there is no reason to believe that much has changed since or that lesser mortals might not be different.

Contrary to popular belief, the explanation was that employers overlook the fact that executive performance is not entirely transferable because personal competencies invariably include company-specific resources that have been left behind.

It’s a conclusion that also endorses the value of emplyees’ ‘left behind’ knowledge and experience, which happens to provide the failsafe solution of a radical new approach to induction and onboarding – skilled knowledge transfer between exiting employees and their replacements. Employers typically try and do this by sometimes overlapping senior individuals and via their induction/onboarding processes. But, as conventional practices show, induction periods still take up to a year and sometimes more for new hires to settle in. Without an intimate awareness of their hosts’ own knowledge and experience, their decision-making on behalf of their new employer is inevitably less than rigorous. There is a better way.

The better way

By providing the incoming employee with a comprehensive oral debrief of the knowledge and experience of the outgoing individual. This’ll require employees to change their attitude to knowledge ownership – they typically believe it is proprietorially theirs – but because employers have paid for it, title is actually jointly held. Employers can therefore request access, an ask that should be obligatory and form part of their terms of employment. While difficult to legally enforce, sensitive handling is required but usually considered flattering by employees who leave of their own accord. Some form of remuneration could be offered for their cooperation.

Delivered in either transcript, audio or video format immediately after induction, the debrief should offer a detailed first-hand account with which to kick-start the new hire’s cold-start employment. Done well, this smooths overall workplace disruption, cuts short normal induction times and helps to avoid the commonplace corporate amnesia that previously dogged the workplace. Given that the average tenure of today’s employees is around five years – so-called stars are among the more mobile – it increases the new employee’s high productivity period. Significantly, the ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ account also provides the replacement (and other colleagues) with a permanent record that can be referred to at any time.

This solution takes care of the short- and medium-term memory that would otherwise be lost. There is also a way of providing employers’ long-term memory, which would extend corporate awareness even further. Immediately after appointment and before induction, new hires could be provided with a suitable-produced corporate history, which could be updated at regular intervals. What usually happens with this product is that it is published as part of a celebratory occasion once or twice every 100 years.

Consider the stop-start workplace scenario where cold-start employees now get inducted virtually immediately. And employers don’t have to worry too much about working with uninitiated short-tenure employees. It’s called proper Experiential Learning (EL) in a flexible labour economy.   

Click here: mrcorporateamnesia.com provides a step-by-step DIY TOOLKIT for employers to do knowledge capture and transfer themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership, knowledge sharing and how best to capture and learn from short-, medium- and long-term organisational memory. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment.

Posted June 29, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

OUR CHANGED WAY OF WORKING NEEDS BUSINESS EDUCATION   Leave a comment

OUR CHANGED WAY OF WORKING NEEDS BUSINESS EDUCATION & TRAINING TO FILL A VERY BIG BLACK HOLE

AN OPEN DISCUSSION ON HOW WE (DON’T) TEACH THE UK TO DO BUSINESS

There are plenty of plaudits for one area of business education that gets little attention from the modern manager. Unfortunately the applause is only articulated by the older group of successful businessmen, management consultants and academics, many of them now deceased, like Sir Peter Parker, a former chairman of British Rail (“ … a missing dimension”), Sir Alistair Pilkington, the late chairman of glass makers Pilkington (“Lack of awareness must put us a disadvantage”), Sir George Blunden, a former deputy Governor of the Bank of England (“Why reinvent the wheel”) and many others. All advocated business history as a necessary component of the education of businessmen and women, best espoused by the words of the UK’s first Professor of Business History, Leslie Hannah, “History provides experience cheaply” (extracted, The Death of Wisdom, Arnold Kransdorff, Business Express Press, 2012).

In the UK’s educational sector the discipline is represented by several associated professional bodies while there are small groups of academics who turn to business to find subjects on which to base their research; also there is a larger community that focusses on the allied field of economics. But little business history filters down to general business or tertiary education, even post graduate education, with the result that the working community at large is essentially bereft of much awareness of their broad business or even sectoral past. The closest business history gets to any curriculum are references to Britain being the forerunner of the industrial revolution and snapshot accounts of real-life business scenarios known as case studies, usually of well-known non-UK companies. 

It’s instructive that politics, the military, music, art and other disciplines even some crafts, use their generic history in the education of their professions, yet not business. If anything, the field is left to commercial publishers and television producers who use mostly professional writers/reporters to investigate important business subjects and, on behalf of a diminished band of companies, print their corporate histories to celebrate important anniversaries once or twice every 100 years. It surely appears that academics primarily produce the product for themselves, the modern manager is history phobic and, for wider society, an explanation for little understanding of the world of work. 

This particular oversight aside, and apart from low-circulation and widely discredited corporate histories, there is another section of business history that is glaringly ignored.  To use IT language, it’s the Small Data counterpart to Big Data, the lesser account of ‘history’ at the more immediate corporate level, more fashionably called institutional or organisational memory (OM) that happens at the coalface of commerce and industry.

Identifying this area is pertinent because of the uprooted system of employment. Not too long ago it was commonplace for employees to have one or two employers in their working lifetimes. Today, the flexible labour market has dramatically increased the current tally in the UK to 10 and rising (in the US it’s 14), providing average tenures of less than five years. It is the single biggest change in the workplace for perhaps 50 years. 

What the flexible labour market has done is to dramatically disrupt the workplace at every level and across commerce and industry, leaving employers and resident employees with no longer-term corporate memory, no medium-term memory and only a disconnected short-term memory. And because every employer is different – they’re dissimilar in their culture and special way of doing things – this miscellany requires employees to more quickly and better understand the singular ways each employer works. As it is, short-changed induction/onboarding processes reduce new employees’ high productivity periods by at least 12 months of their short tenures, which helps to explain why employers find it so difficult to improve organic and productivity growth. 

To address this, employers need only capture the organisational memory of key exiting employees through skilful and comprehensive debriefing, and transfer it via transcript, audio or video to their replacements, thus smoothing workplace disruption and avoiding widespread corporate amnesia. Thereafter, acknowledged decision-making methodologies need to incorporate this additional evidence when determinations are reflected upon and applied. To serve employers’ long-term memory, the traditional corporate history needs to be more suitably produced, with contemporary history updated at regular intervals. 

Alongside this more appropriate long-term overview, consider the stop-start workplace scenario where cold-start employees don’t have to work with short-changed evidence. And employers can continue to work with short-tenure employees. It’s called proper experiential learning in a flexible labour economy that also uses the acquired wisdom of Messrs Parker, Pilkington, Blunden and Hannah. Address the obvious problems of knowledge capture and it’s a no-brainer for Win-Win ….

Click here: mrcorporateamnesia.com provides a step-by-step DIY TOOLKIT for employers to do knowledge capture and transfer themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership, knowledge sharing and how best to capture and learn from short-, medium- and long-term organisational memory. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment.

Posted June 22, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized

COVID-19 ADVICE TO BUSINESS:   Leave a comment

COVID-19 ADVICE TO BUSINESS: “DON’T LET YOUR HARD-WON KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE WALK OUT OF THE FRONT DOOR”

By Arnold Kransdorff, aka Mr Corporate Amnesia

Covid-19’s devastating impact on both employment numbers and gross domestic product has renewed the importance of productivity as the best way of achieving any sort of recovery. This representative measure of corporate and national output in several big Western economies has been difficult enough for too long, so how? 

By fixing their dysfunctional workplaces.

This might sound glaringly self-evident but consider this: There is an intimate connection between productivity and the workplace that is often missed, the former being a function of how effective the latter is. Fix the workplace and the journey will become easier. 

But the state of the West’s modern workplace is dire, its tenants being nomadic, rootless, disloyal and insecure, a place where jobs are constantly being disrupted, where employers’ re-employment and training costs are sky high and, because important employer-specific knowledge and experience is regularly dispersed, decision-making is less than rigorous. All this is hardly conducive to efficient organic and productivity growth – and Covid-19’s devastating effect is only going to make things worse. 

The return of high staff turnover

While the virus’s immediate after-effect will likely reduce the turnover of those employees who survive the workplace bloodbath, the endemic presence of staff churn will soon return as employers vie with each other for the available expertise. And employees will continue to use flexible working as a pretext to increase their remuneration and career prospects.       

How difficult is this going to be for employers?

Very. In truth, well-nigh impossible for many years. For one simple reason – the breakdown in the employers’ knowledge and experience base. The initial departure of so many employees means the loss of enormous amounts of hard-won expertise at all levels that employers will need to reconstruct and then use to recover. And later, as recruitment picks up, there will be the resumption of the ‘new-normal’ staff turnover levels. For a reminder, ‘old-normal’ churn – just five months before at the time of writing – meant that up to 28% of employees changed their employer every year in the two big flexible labour economies of the US and the UK. 

How to do it

The answer? Implement a multi-level knowledge retention programme of skilled oral debriefings in either transcript, audio or video formats to firstly capture the knowledge and experience of as many of the important first-wave departees as possible. For suitable cooperation, offers could be made to supplement redundancy packages. This would cover the immediate knowledge-loss problem. The programme could then be continued to address future know-how losses that would occur from the new-normal staff turnover. Because it is a permanent record, the captured knowledge and experience could be retrieved at any stage and recycled to serve both in-situ employees as well as replacements. 

Importantly, such a programme would help to maintain a level of operational continuity in the workplace, contain what’s called corporate amnesia at the employers’ many functioning levels, and help both decision-making and productivity. Employers could then turn to mending the other dysfunction aspects of the flexible labour market – its rootlessness, disloyalty and insecurity. 

Click here: mrcorporateamnesia.com provides a step-by-step TOOLKIT for employers to do knowledge transfer themselves. It explains the issues around knowledge ownership, knowledge sharing and how best to capture and learn from short- medium- and long-term organisational memory. The recognised tools used have been customised to accommodate today’s short-tenure employment. 

+ In different – but not too different circumstances – one of the best examples of this was in Los Alamos, the birthplace of the Atomic Bomb. In the wake of the US Government’s decision to stop testing nuclear weapons, officials were concerned that the skills it has developed would atrophy. In the event that it has to one day resume testing, it undertook a massive programme to ensure that the expensively-acquired expertise it has accumulated over the years was not lost forever as archives progressively degenerated and scientists retired. As part of the programme, retired weaponeers were brought back for videotaped interviews intended to salvage information about nuclear bombs that could never be gleaned from blueprints and archived documentation. The Los Alamos researchers recorded about 2,000 videotapes. Behind the need to guarantee that they retained the expertise to build atomic bombs was to ensure that they did not have to re-invent the wheel. “We don’t want to press the erase button on our memory and go back to where we were 50 years ago,” said John D. Immele, director of nuclear weapons technology at Los Alamos (extract, ‘Corporate Amnesia, Keeping Know-how in the Company’, by Arnold Kransdorff, Butterworth Heinmann, 1998).

Posted June 14, 2020 by Knowledge Management in Uncategorized