Management of Knowledge and Innovation

...

The development of a culture for knowledge sharing

While the technological infrastructure was being established, an equally important development was the attempt to foster a knowledge sharing culture at Buckman Labs. In many respects, this attempt to change ‘hearts and minds’ was an even bigger challenge as established ways of thinking and working tend to be both culturally and politically embedded within organizations. Not only are they intertwined with long-established values and assumptions, they are also defended fiercely by powerful groups who see change as an assault upon their interests. In this respect, Buckman Labs was no exception. Bob Buckman, in particular, sought to overcome such resistance within the firm.

Bob Buckman liked to draw an inverted pyramid with the customer at the top and stress "the customer is most important." One of his most repeated phrases was “effectively engaged on the front line.” For him engagement was not a vague concept. “Effective engagement is when an associate takes responsibility for and is actively involved with satisfying the needs and expectations of our customers, so that Buckman Laboratories becomes their preferred choice among all other specialty chemical suppliers.”

He believed that many associates had developed their expertise within environments such as school and university which encouraged the hoarding not the sharing of knowledge. Within the education system, he argued, knowledge sharing is termed plagiarism and is punished. Copying from others is frowned upon. It is the individual’s ability to accumulate knowledge in their own right which is rewarded. In contrast, Buckman sought to create a culture in which associates who shared their knowledge would be the most influential and sought after individuals within the company.

Resistance to this knowledge sharing vision came in large part from middle management who had been traditionally perceived as information gatekeepers in the company. The radical cultural change introduced by Bob Buckman had major implications for the power structure of middle management. In the past, middle management had sought to control the flow of information to employees in order to protect their own roles in the organization.

It took some years for these attitudes to change – learning the new norms and values, involved painfully unlearning the old culture. To help associates understand the expected behavior, Buckman sought to put in place a new Code of Ethics. This was issued on a wallet-sized laminated card to every employee. Buckman’s Code of Ethics was presented as the ‘glue’ that would hold the company together. It was seen as providing the basis for the respect and trust that are necessary in a knowledge sharing environment. In presenting this new model of culture, Bob Buckman asked his employees to think about the company as a ship, with the Code of Ethics as the waterline of the ship. The message to associates was simple: “You do not shoot below the waterline, because you can sink the ship. However, you are free to be as innovative as you wish in changing the superstructure of the ship to meet the needs of the customer”. This concern with culture, reflected Buckman’s belief that creating new knowledge involved not only objective, external information, but also tacit and highly subjective individual insights, intuitions and hunches. He sought to ensure that creating and sharing knowledge was no longer seen as the exclusive responsibility of the R&D department but rather a responsibility of all employees.

Buckman Labs’ Code of Ethics

Because we are separated – by many miles, by diversity of cultures and languages –

we at Buckman need a clear understanding of the basic principles by which we will operate our company. These are:

That the company is made up of individuals – each of whom has different capabilities and potentials – all of which are necessary to the success of the company.

That we acknowledge that individuality by treating each other with dignity and respect – striving to maintain continuous and positive communications among all of us.

That we will recognize and reward the contributions and accomplishments of each individual.

That we will continually plan for the future so that we can control our destiny instead of letting events overtake us.

But, the cultural change at Buckman Labs was not just a product of these cards. Leadership, and in particular Bob Buckman’s stern resolve to ‘manage the managers’ was of paramount importance. The experience here arguably highlights another side of leadership – that is, the selective of sanctions as well as rewards in order to reinforce certain kinds of behaviour. In this instance, the desire to encourage knowledge sharing led Bob Buckman to write personally to all of those associates who were deemed to be unwilling to participate in the sharing activities. These letters conveyed the following blunt message: ‘If one is not willing to contribute or participate, then he or she should understand that many opportunities offered in the past will no longer be available.’ Whatever the success of the more subtle attempts to engineer the right kind of culture, this blunt approach seems to have been effective at least in overcoming resistance to change and dismantling barriers to communication across the organization and between different levels of management. What Buckman termed the ‘smokeblowers’ in middle management were effectively marginalized. The visible result of this effort to stigmatize ‘knowledge-hoarding’ was the creation of a global Knowledge Management system in which employees were for the first time encouraged to speak freely about their opinions outside of the chain of command. As one manager observed; ‘With the global network in place, it does not matter if you are a sales associate, a regional or district manager or a corporate VP (Vice President) - everybody talks to everybody.’

Communities of practice

Over the recent period, communities of practice have evolved informally within the company to share knowledge for specific customer problems as well as to gather knowledge for wider corporate use. According to a scientist from the R&D Department;

‘These are small sub-groups of people who have mutual respect, share some common values and generally get the important work done. They are not necessarily a team, a task force or any other authorized group. Their bonding is social