We handle a lot of information in companies, although more is usually needed, especially about the outside world. But perhaps the biggest problem lies in the translation of available information into applicable knowledge, both during learning and carrying out tasks, as well as in making the most important decisions. It seems that society is focused on digital literacy, on the use of computer tools; but access to content does not mean finding what one is looking for, nor does it mean assigning the correct meaning to the signifiers found.
Lifelong learning and so-called knowledge management have been preached in companies for almost fifteen years; But neither the former is limited to attending the courses that are orchestrated under the label of continuous training, nor the latter - an advance on previous information management systems - has been sufficiently consolidated. There is talk of the “Information and Knowledge Society” and its alter ego, the “Knowledge and Innovation Economy”, but the initiatives are deployed around technology, and not so much around people.
Already in the 90s we began to speak insistently about the Information Society, and now we know that the information available in the world doubles every few months. Perhaps we do not always find what we are looking for, but without a doubt there is much that is offered to us and we have to know how to extract the maximum knowledge from the available information. This is a challenge to face: get to what is offered to us, separate the good from the mediocre, incorporate it into our body of knowledge and find the ideal application for it. Almost no one questions lifelong learning anymore, and, beyond attending courses periodically, it forces us to deal well with the much technical and scientific information, printed or electronic, that we can access.
We certainly live immersed in the economy of knowledge and innovation. We have been transforming ourselves into the new workers of knowledge, that the tireless Peter Drucker - whom, now deceased, we can imagine at peace, but hardly at rest - had been describing more or less like this:
- Visible degree of personal and professional development. Digital and informational skills. Loyalty to your profession. Autonomy in performance and lifelong learning. Creative ability and innovative attitude. Professional autotelia and adherence to quality. In short, a valuable asset to the straight economy.
If the PC is our tool, information becomes, in many cases, the raw material of our daily work. We must master the knowledge of the field in which we operate, and we must also be generating new knowledge: expanding the field. This seems to be the formula for prosperity, survival, access to the future in today's economy.
A little over ten years ago, two concepts related to the Information Society began to spread separately: in companies, knowledge management; and in the universities, the sufficiency or informational skills. The first (knowledge management) seemed to involve a kind of conceptual reengineering of traditional information management systems in companies, paying more attention to the technical, functional and relational information of business activity: know what, know how, the know why, the know who… The second (information literacy) emerged among documentary makers and in some universities, in tune with the growing concern for lifelong learning (self directed lifelong learning). The idea of informational sufficiency - today, rather than talking about sufficiency, we had to talk about excellence - already pointed to access, use and exploitation of the growing information available, although we still did not use the Internet.
Since those 90s, on the one hand the advancement of knowledge management in companies has not always been satisfactory (despite the powerful tools available), and on the other, information has continued to multiply significantly and make itself available to us through of ICT. Today, those concepts - knowledge management and informational skills (information fluency) - have very visibly approached each other in the business world, to enter into synergy with the emerging figures of the new manager and the new worker, also very especially with the idea of lifelong learning, of course with the need to innovate, and, ultimately, with the evolution of the economy.
In organizations, skill in the use and exploitation of accessible internal and external information seems more than necessary, although we do not always have it to the precise degree. Perhaps the new generations will leave universities with a solid preparation for lifelong learning, but companies today already need a greater dose of knowledge, to better face their challenges of competitiveness and prosperity in the new economy. The concept of business excellence has evolved with the new realities, and it does not seem to be questioned that we should also be excellent in translating information into knowledge, and in the flow of it in companies. Everything certainly points to the need for us to improve our informational competence.
(Curiously, in a recent book the editor changed my expression "informational competences" to "informational competences" and I found that surprise. The truth is that experts speak of information literacy ("alfin") and I have adhered to the adjective even if you have chosen other nouns. Instead of talking about literacy or proficiency, I prefer to speak in the company of excellence, competence or skill).
In recent years this concern has been insisted upon, and as an example I now recall a paragraph from the director of the Navarrese think tank Institución Futuro, Julio Pomés, in Expansión, in 2002:
“When we allow new technologies to hypnotize us, we fall into the gluttony of swallowing overwhelming information that prevents us from concentrating on what is essential: synthesis. There is something worse than not having information: lacking selection criteria that filter and provide only the references that have meaning to study an issue. When the person who must decide does not have all the information, but knows what is really essential, he usually applies an additional common sense, which often achieves holistic intuitions, more brilliant than those derived from evaluating non-relevant information ”.
Here we were already being alerted to that kind of gap between information and knowledge. It seemed years ago, and even today, that the important thing was to deal with technology to access information, but we must also focus our attention on how to translate information into knowledge, in what we call lifelong learning, throughout and width of our working life. Nor would it be wrong to delve into the passage from knowledge to action -or from knowledge to innovation-, but let's focus now on the automatic nothingness of the achievement of new knowledge, based on the available logistical, technical and scientific information.
And there is another important message in the reproduced text: the growing importance of intuition in the profile of new managers and knowledge workers. Intuition should not replace careful analysis of accurate information, but it is a valuable complement from which we can get more out of it. It helps us to read between the lines, to understand, to evaluate, to make connections, to abstract, to apply what we have learned.
How we relate to the information
It can be said that many of us are human information processors: we consult many papers and generate more. We continuously learn and contribute, through innovation, to extend the frontiers of our field of knowledge. What we do is full of knowledge: what we have acquired, what we continue to acquire and what we ourselves have generated. However, the passage from information (which lies in supports) to knowledge (which lies in people) is extremely complex - not automatic - and invites analysis and reflection. It can be said that the treatment of the much information offered to us consists of the following steps:
- Awareness of the need for information. Definition of the search pattern. Identification of sources. Access to them (human, printed or electronic). Finding useful information. Parallel discoveries. Examination of the information. Interpretation and evaluation of it. Information contrast. Integration and learning. Combination with previous knowledge. Establishing connections. Possible inferences and abstractions. Synthesis and conclusions. Systemic reflection. Application and dissemination.
Indeed, managers and knowledge workers, before acting -open new lines of business, carry out a study, analyze opportunities, define a project, prepare an offer, design a process or product, organize an activity, develop a plan, solve a problem, etc. - we inform ourselves, we learn, we reflect, and we finally apply what we have learned, or we disseminate it. Each new knowledge must fit into the existing heritage and contribute to results. Here then is the list of subtasks of the treatment of information as raw material; subtasks that mark, on the one hand, the path of our self-directed lifelong learning, and that on the other constitute a good part of our daily performance: knowledge is, basically, the ability to act (because ignorance incapacitates us).
We are alerted to the importance of defining good search patterns, of distinguishing rigorous and well-founded information from that which is not, of connecting some knowledge with others, of generating enriching syntheses… Without a doubt and among others, we face a particularly transcendent challenge: evaluate the information we access, putting our critical thinking to work. We can, for example, find documents on the Internet with dense and even convincing content, which, however, have already become outdated and out of date; We can also be persuaded by information that is lacking in rigor, or formulated with interests of questionable legitimacy.
On the other hand, we do not always know on what date information was written, nor do we have enough information about the author and his sources. Being even more specific, this sometimes happens with online courses offered within the framework of continuous training: sometimes we lack sufficient references about the author and the documentation that has been handled in the design. Due to the pace with which the fields of knowledge advance, we will all have to get used to generating information -metain information: date, authors, sources, references, summaries, connections, dissemination, etc.- about the information that we generate ourselves, and to miss it when we make inquiries to increase our knowledge. But neither is the combination of the new knowledge with the previous one always easy, or the elaboration, where appropriate, of connections, analogies,inferences and abstractions, or the application of the conclusions reached.
Successfully performing these mental operations is so important that we cannot evade an analysis of necessary competencies. We need skills of a functional nature (knowledge of the field, search and inquiry strategy, use of tools, ability to understand and synthesize, question and evaluate information, materialize learning…), and also skills of a more personal nature (self-knowledge, eagerness to learn, flexibility, concentration, tenacity, intuition, critical thinking…). But these would only be the informational competencies of the “pull” type, that is, those that we put in place to learn; It would be necessary to add others of the “push” type, for when we are the ones who have to generate information for others.
Indeed, our profile as managers and knowledge workers forces us to generate information for others: to express ourselves orally, but above all to write. Let us then add other informational competencies, both operational or functional (allegation, written communication…) and personal (conceptual rigor, assertiveness, empathy, collective spirit…). Many large companies have deployed their competency models for human resource management, but informational competencies, such as conversational competencies, may have been underestimated, if not overlooked, in some cases. The fact is, we can't take our informational prowess in the knowledge economy for granted - great if we're proficient in this area, but let's check it out.
It must be remembered that, in our assignment of meaning to signifiers (that is, in the study of information), several elements influence: our interests, concerns and desires; our prior knowledge and experience; the beliefs and mental models that filter reality… In other words, we all have to make a notable effort of objectivity - neutralizing chronic and occasional biases - of which we are not always aware. In other words, on the one hand we have to neutralize endogenous interferences (and, where appropriate, exogenous ones), and on the other we have to develop the diverse informational competences (personal and operational) to which we referred.
The direction of people
We have heard many times that, in reality, knowledge management involves, to a large extent, the management of the people who treasure it, and I would invite you to consider the profile of autonomy, if not self-leadership, of the new workers that Drucker was talking to us. Of course, consulting firms continue to preach interpersonal leadership of managers, and perhaps they have been doing so for at least 15 years now. In the early 1990s, we experienced important changes in large companies, and also in the relationships between managers and workers: a new profile was needed in managers, and we started talking about leaders. It was a good label for those who were to materialize the various changes in progress. Different experts - Burns, Fiedler, Hersey, Blanchard, Bennis,Kotter… - they had already given us important clues about the manager's new profile, but since then many other experts have continued to draw the leader, and put adjectives to him.
Without a doubt, leadership is one of the business management postulates to which we have added more adjectives (transformational, transactional, situational, relational, resonant, democratic, emotional, ethical, responsible, service, participatory, inspiring, empowering, charismatic, visionary …), And of which we do more diverse readings; Perhaps its meaning should be questioned - redefining leadership - taking into account the profile of the new emerging followers. We may still think, to a large extent, of the workers of the industrial age, and not so much of the expert professionals, practitioners of lifelong learning. Although it may also be thought that the knowledge economy is only on its way.
We should not insist so much on a wrong or exaggerated elitization of leaders versus followers. In the name of managerial talent, we have indulged many young people “with potential”, and today we know it well. In the knowledge economy and as it consolidates, what counts is, above all, knowledge; good management remains obviously inexcusable, but knowledge, nurtured by lifelong learning and development, is also vital, decisive. Let's stop, if I accept the forcefulness, from pampering managers too much and label them leaders, to promote, from professionalism and ethics, continuous learning, knowledge, innovation, productivity and competitiveness of the entire organization.
I insist on the importance of knowledge, because today any fairly complex product has an essential component: built-in knowledge. Many products, without referring to the PCs themselves, are full of "intelligence", of electronic engineering or mechatronics: automobiles, electrical appliances, telephones, cards… Workers constitute an asset for the company to the extent that they know, and that they can contribute to inexcusable innovation. They know more than their managerial bosses, and they are aware of the importance of their knowledge. Workers need companies, but they also need knowledge workers. The workers do not ask to be pampered, but they do ask for something more to be respected. (I think all of this was said by Drucker, quite clearly.)
Taking advantage of existing knowledge and generating new knowledge (innovation) are objectives that must be achieved with competent people, whose commitment, trust and loyalty is earned. I recently read that a consulting firm offered a new leadership model, the implementation tool of which was "the behaviors of the managers themselves that will serve as an example to achieve the habits of the collaborators." Without a doubt, all behaviors should be exemplary, but I kept thinking about the danger that workers would also spend a lot of time together… The fact is that it is difficult to direct expert workers, that I am not sure that the key is in Ask them to follow the example of the managers, and that the best thing could be to practice a plus version of empowerment, provided that the conditions were met.
In the knowledge economy perhaps there should be more intrapersonal leadership, and the interpersonal should be adjusted to the characteristics of the followers. After all, you are not a leader if you are not seen as such by the supposed followers (I would say). But deep down and between the lines, I am submitting to the reader's consideration the need to properly value knowledge; if we do not value it, it will not grow sufficiently, nor will we facilitate innovation. The distance between managers and workers should be reviewed without clinging to the status quo.
conclusion
We have talked about 16 precise steps in the treatment of technical and scientific information (and perhaps operational, financial, logistics…) as a tool and even raw material, and we must finally insist that, in general, any deficiency in each of they creep into the following. What is at risk is the acquisition of the knowledge that is necessary at all times to better decide, and in this regard we would insist that perhaps there is something worse than ignorance: false learning. If good apprenticeships can become obsolete in a short time and we are not always attentive to their renewal, imagine how dangerous wrong or incomplete apprenticeships can be, perhaps the result of various sensitive deficiencies: in the use of tools, in insight and tenacity during the search,in critical thinking during evaluation, in the rigor of inferences, in the integration of knowledge, etc.
Let us remember that knowledge is the ability to act, but that acting well requires a whole competence profile of skills, attitudes, strengths, habits… And let us also remember that intuition is a not inconsiderable source of knowledge and that we should cultivate more. This faculty complements reason and becomes a kind of jewel in the crown of intelligence; it is nourished by conscious and also less conscious or hidden knowledge.
One last detail for the interested reader who has accompanied us here: let's not forget the possible serendipitous discoveries during our access to information. We can come across interesting information that, although they do not respond to our search pattern, should be recorded for the near future. We find these kinds of chance discoveries behind many technical and scientific advances. We would continue to say things - like, for example, that we almost never exhaust the possibilities of learning from each information considered valuable - but we will leave it for today. Do not forget to evaluate your informational skills, with the aim of improving them.
