In another article (Castañeda, 2002), I presented a proposal for a model of levels and variables of human capital associated with knowledge management. In summary, the model proposes three levels of human capital: individual, group and organizational. At each level, variables have been identified that, due to their relevance in the life of organizations, are of interest in the field of knowledge management.
This article explores one of the variables at the individual level: perception, with the aim of analyzing its influence on organizational processes and programs associated with knowledge management.
Robbins (1999), defines perception as a process through which individuals organize and interpret their sensory impressions, in order to give meaning to their environment.
Hochberg (1998) states that the problem of perception and cognition refers to how the person transforms, organizes, stores and uses the information available in the form of sensory data or memory. This definition of human perception can be very similar to that of knowledge management in the context of an organization.
Kreitner, R. And Kinicki, A. (1997), describe perception as a process that consists of four stages: 1. Selective attention and understanding, 2. Coding and simplification, 3. Storage and retention, and 4. Retrieval and response. Several lessons emerge from the above.
In the first place, we do not perceive everything, but only the outstanding, either by original, or by any other characteristic that is striking for the person. This statement is extremely important in knowledge management in aspects such as: the design of materials, the organization of databases, the characteristics of an electronic page, an intranet, etc. The information must be structured and presented in such a way that what we consider relevant stands out from the rest.
Second, in states of need, stimuli related to lack are more salient. It is easier to find what you are looking for if you need or think you need it. Additionally, the higher the perception of need, the shorter the time to start your search. If individual needs do not match organizational satisfiers, workers and companies may go their separate ways. Organizations often have a lot of information that nobody thinks they need or worse, few know.
Third, the observed information is not stored in memory in its original form, but is encoded by the individual in a particular way. Let's analyze this aspect.
Each person has a unique story. Factors such as: parenting patterns, education, models, previous experiences and moods, influence, consciously or not consciously, the concept that someone has of others, their world or themselves. For this reason, although the stimuli of a situation are the same, the meaning (perception) can vary for two observers, and even for the same person at two different moments in life.
This personalized interpretation of reality is what characterizes human perception. Sensory agreement does not guarantee perceptual agreement. Two people can agree that what is observed is a car (sensation), however, for one it can mean uncomfortable and expensive and for the other sporty and exclusive (perception).
In organizational situations, neither can it be assumed that an agreement in the sensory means an agreement in the perceptual. It is probable that the content of a document is read in the same way by two employees in an Entity, however, for one of them it means a proposal to save the company and for the other a proposal to annihilate workers.
Fourth, perception has a strong influence on behavior. That is, people do not behave based on the objective characteristics of the surrounding reality, but based on the perceptions that they form of that reality. This explains at least partially why, with the same elements, in a problem situation, two people behave differently.
As an example, let's analyze an essential behavior to promote knowledge management: “sharing”, understood as the exchange of information and knowledge.
In the practice of organizations, the behavior of sharing is not equally valued by all. For some, sharing is perceived as a loss of power and for others an opportunity for development. In the first case, there will be blocking and procrastination behaviors. In the second, facilitation and speed behaviors.
It is important that organizations interested in knowledge management not only diagnose difficulties with this behavior, but also design and implement intervention plans to make corrections, which take into account the phenomenon of human perception.
Fifth, perception has implications for the acquisition of knowledge.
Prusak (1996), argues that the main source of the creation of competitive advantages for a company lies in its knowledge, that is, in what it knows, in how it uses it and in its ability to learn new things.
What the company "knows" is nothing more than the knowledge that the people and groups of people that compose it have. Knowledge is not something static and mechanical. There is no knowledge without people. Without them only data. Both personal and organizational knowledge has previously passed through the human perceptual filter and is therefore sensitive to error, distortion or controversy.
New knowledge arises from both objective and subjective information. Nonaka (2000) states that particularly in Japan, the new knowledge arises from the use of subjective perceptions, intuitions and hunches of the employees, which are tested and used by the company.
How the organization uses knowledge depends largely on the perception that individuals and groups have of needs or opportunities, both personal and work. In this regard, knowledge is considered "essential" if it contributes decisively to the generation of economic value for the company (Viedma, J. 2000). A company will be able to produce more essential knowledge to the extent that it can facilitate in its members perceptions associated with the mission, desired future, strategies and organizational priorities.
Finally, perceptions are mediated by other variables, in particular: values, attitudes, motivations, and knowledge. Thus, two people with different values, attitudes, motivations and knowledge, can have different perceptions of the same thing, person or situation and for the same reason, different behaviors. In future articles this relationship between model variables will be analyzed.
The conclusion for those who work in knowledge management is that, in addition to concentrating efforts on the technical aspects of the area, special attention should be paid to the way in which people perceive information, convert it into knowledge, share it and how much this knowledge shared is consistent with the original version and compatible with what the organization promotes.
Bibliography
Castañeda, D. (2002). Levels and Variables of Human Capital Associated with Knowledge Management
Hoechberg, J. (Ed.) (1998) Perception and Cognition at Century's End. Academic Press, San Diego.
Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. (1997) Organizational Behavior. Madrid. McGraw-Hill.
Nonaka, I. (2000). The Knowledge Creator Company. In Knowledge Management. Harvard Business Review. Deusto.
Prusak, L. (1996), The Knowledge Advantage. Strategy and Leadership. March / April.
Robbins, S. (1999) Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Mexico.
Viedma, J. (2000) The Management of Knowledge and Intellectual Capital.
