Knowing - Doing Gap
3 likes988 views
The document discusses reasons why many organizations struggle to convert knowledge into effective action, despite having access to education and training resources. Key issues include a reliance on complex ideas over simple solutions, a culture of fear and distrust, and a tendency to prioritize internal competition over collaboration. The authors argue that practical experience and alignment between strategies, values, and measurement systems are essential to overcoming these challenges and achieving meaningful change.
Knowing - Doing Gap
- 1. Bridging the Knowing - Doing Gap April, 2016
- 2. § Most companies know or can know the same things. But why do so few companies turn this knowledge into action? § Why does the plethora of education and training, management consulting, research, books and articles on business produce so little change in actual managerial practice? § Why are some organisations able consistently to turn knowledge into action even as they grow and absorb new people and businesses, while other organisations, composed of thoughtful, intelligent, hard working, nice people, fail to do so? § Great companies get remarkable performance from ordinary people. Not so great companies take talented people and manage to lose the benefits of their talent, insight and motivation § Pfeffer and Sutton undertook four years of research into many organisations to reveal the main reasons why these things happen which are described at length in their book “The Knowing – Doing Gap”. The question 2
- 3. § Many organisations would rather talk, conceptualise and rationalise about problems than confront them directly. They treat talking about something as equivalent to actually doing something about it. Documentation, presentations and meetings are all too frequently substitutes for action § There are too many companies that confuse a written statement of a mission or values with the need to implement those values. Leaders act as though writing it down makes it true, as if wishing or talking made it so. Similarly, companies confuse having a plan with actually implementing it and learning something § Frequently, people gain stature in organisations by talking cleverly and often. Unfortunately, one of the best ways of appearing clever is to be critical of others’ ideas and this frequently gets in the way of action § Ironically, in many companies people are more likely to get ahead by talking cleverly than by doing clever and productive things § Knowledge that is actually implemented is much more likely to have been acquired from learning by doing than from anything else. Taking action will generate experience from which things are learned 1. Talk is a substitute for action 3
- 4. § Complexity is valued in many firms. This is based on several lines of reasoning: • Sustainable, competitive advantage is built on doing things that are difficult to imitate. Complex things are more difficult to imitate and therefore must be better than simple ideas • Using complex ideas, analysis and language is a way of impressing others • If few people are clever enough to comprehend what the firm is doing, its managers must be really clever § These lines of reasoning confuse ease of understanding with ease of implementation. Simple, powerful ideas such as decentralisation, delegation and information sharing are very easy to understand but difficult to accomplish § Complexity is an obstacle to taking action because implementation usually has to wait until knowledge is understood by a large number of people working in disparate locations 2. Complexity is valued 84
- 5. § Processes and techniques are not much good without values and philosophies that support them. Telling someone what to do is more powerful if it is supported by the reason why § Companies frequently overestimate the importance of the tangible, specific, programmatic aspects of what competitors do, but underestimate the importance of the underlying philosophy that guides what they do and why they do it § For example, the Toyota Production System is not just a set of techniques or practices. It is about a philosophy and perspectives on such things as people, processes, quality, and continuous improvement § In turning knowledge into action, it is crucial that strategies, plans and objectives are consistent with core values, philosophy and systems for measurement and reward 3. Strategies and plans must be consistent with philosophy and values 5
- 6. § Organisations can become trapped by their history when memory, embodied in precedents, customs of unknown origin, stories about how things have always been or used to be, and standard operating procedures, becomes a substitute for taking action wisely § This tendency is particularly pronounced in organisations with such a strong identity that anything new is viewed as ‘inconsistent with who we are’ § It is easier to rely on precedent than to learn something new 4. Memory is a substitute for thinking 6
- 7. § Many organisations that fail to transform knowledge into action have a pervasive atmosphere of fear and distrust. There are still many people, including stock market analysts, who admire tough, hard nosed or even mean spirited bosses § Studies show that fear and distrust are particularly prevalent in organisations and countries that have witnessed widespread restructuring and redundancies § Fear of dismissal has been pinpointed as one of the main reasons for the widespread failure of so-called business process re-engineering § The tendency for bad news to be screened and sanitised for fear of reprisal often means that leaders develop remarkably inaccurate images of their organisations. They think no action is necessary even though many people under them realise the need for change and know what should be done 5. Fear prevents organisations from acting on knowledge 7
- 8. § Everybody knows the importance of measurement. What gets measured tends to get done and what is not measured tends to get ignored § Badly designed or unnecessarily complex measuring systems are among the biggest barriers to turning knowledge into action § Badly designed measuring systems are frequently short-term and focused exclusively on outcomes and hard financial facts § Even an organisation with a strong culture and a long tradition and history of valuing people (for example, HP) can get into trouble when there are intense pressures to produce the numbers that the measuring system emphasises above all else § A measuring system that is strictly financial will lead to other important aspects of the organisation and its development being neglected 6. Measurement obstructs good judgement 8
- 9. § Internal competition is very common in companies and is frequently encouraged (for example, between different businesses, plants and individuals) § Many believe that the willingness of individuals to cooperate with colleagues is one of the major determinants of organisational effectiveness and efficiency. Internal competition discourages this and can be a zero-sum game, encouraging individualistic behaviour while discouraging teamwork and the sharing of knowledge § Competition causes people to see more distinctions between units than actually exist and to spend time talking and thinking about them. So, it is more likely that ideas from another unit will be rejected because they are considered inconsistent with the identity of the group. In addition, status is threatened by the acceptance of ideas from elsewhere because it suggests an admission that others have something to teach and that we have something to learn § This rapidly develops into defensive behaviour (self-protection, egotism, fear of loss of face, discomfort with interpersonal conflict) that inhibits open dialogue, transparency, and the building of mutual trust between colleagues § Internal competition also distracts attention from real, external competitors 7. Internal competition turns friends into enemies 9
- 11. What 20-20 does – our formula Our approach We work to bring clarity to complexity in order to make things simpler so that action plans can be implemented We focus on Real insight Client’s close involvement Pragmatic approach Organisation Acquisition, integration, operational restructuring, target operating model, and organisational design People and process Business process re-engineering, managing change programmes, and introduce performance controls Revenue and Costs Business development strategy, sales and marketing, customer profitability, overheads, the supply chain, and reducing complexity Small teams Seasoned consultants General managerial perspective Economic value 11
- 12. 12 Our contract to deliver success § Small joint team § 100% commitment to results § Frequent reviews - weekly § Fast effective working practices § Openness § Integrity § Team Work § Client satisfaction ‘10 out of 10 § Excellence § Results • Excellent people on the Project Team • Commitment of leadership time and effort • Constructive feedback • Active engagement Ways of Working Client participation and ownership Values
- 13. Who we are
- 14. Our peoples’ backgrounds and experience Les Murray Les works with big organisations to bring about large-scale change through restructuring projects which cut complexity, reduce costs and make businesses more efficient. He has achieved success for major companies throughout the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Far East, and North America. In his work on restructuring, Les: § led multiple organisation and performance reviews at Rolls Royce Plc (Aerospace, Defence, Marine, Nuclear at locations in UK, Nordics, North America, and Far East) generating well in excess of £250m sustainable cost savings pa "adding £2 to the share price" – Sir John Rose, Group CEO § led reviews of the organisation, and transfer pricing, at Caterpillar in North America that re-shaped product management and restructured manufacturing § led a review of business process and cost structures that resulted in a restructuring of operations at Ricardo plc. The review was conducted within a tight eight-week timeline and resulted in £5m in cost savings achieved by a blend of new process improvement and indirect head count reduction § removed £15m of operating costs at Chemring Group. Indirect overheads were scaled back with 40% of central staff departing without adversely affecting service. The productivity of the business units was raised through a series of integrations “delivering results quickly” – Mark Papworth, CEO . § led the transformation of multiple retailers (Boots, Dixons) building upon the development of e-channels Schooled in high-street marketing and a first-class communicator, he has honed his broad skills on diverse projects – in aerospace, manufacturing, and service industries. Les read Politics at Edinburgh University and Marketing Strategy at Stanford University, California. Aged 29, he became Marketing Director at Moss Bros and re-energised the hire business. At Littlewoods, as New Business Director, he set up a new plan for direct marketing and doubled internet sales. An experienced executive, Les applies his energy and skills to manage large-scale change and integrate structure with processes and systems. Les knows how to restructure and get results in challenging and pressurised environments. 14
- 15. A selection of our past clients 16
- 16. Forecasts and recommendations in a proposal, report or letter are made in good faith and on the basis of the information before us at the time. Results depend on the effective co-operation of the client and the client's staff. Therefore, no statement in a proposal, report or letter is a representation, undertaking, warranty or contractual condition. This Company shall not be liable for any losses which were not reasonably foreseeable on acceptance of a proposal or for indirect or consequential losses including loss of revenue, expected profits and claims by third parties.
- 17. Telephone +44 77 93 53 90 75 Email Les.murray@20-20management.com