Knowledge-based organizations base their competitiveness on knowledge and specific knowledge-related capabilities. The nature of knowledge is an important determinant enhancing understanding of firm behaviour and related organizing.

An overview of trust and trust building in networks delivered by Kirsimarja Blomqvist from Lappeenranta University of Technology

For trust to be a source of organizational competitiveness, a holistic and comprehensive development is needed. A strategic approach to trust building must consider different dimensions of trust, as well as related trust-building processes. Different types of trust are complementary and an organization actively supporting development of impersonal and interpersonal elements of trust can build stronger organizational trust among employees and other stakeholders. Even if there would be an aspiration to develop (trust capital and) trust in all stakeholders it is important to start by developing firm-internal trust in employees because of the interaction between internal and external norms and values, as she cites in this paper.

Whilst some researchers disagree whether trust can be intentionally created, clearly trust is very difficult to develop and sustain. A sort of ‘familiarity breeds mistrust’ can set in if certain boundaries are not respected or given due regard. It is however believed that the conditions (processes, routines and settings) affecting the evolution of trust may be managed. In order to do so, Blomqvist analyzes what is known of the creation and experience of trust. It becomes evident that interpersonal and inter-organizational trust creation is key and she shows some means to build trust and build a conceptual model on trust building in inter-organizational context.

An overview of trust and trust building in networks

A Video Lecture by Kirsimarja Blomqvist

Appreciative inquiry, when applied to human relationships,

brings out the best in people,

builds enduring emotional bonds

and lays the groundwork for quality engagements.

The appreciative inquiry model, is normally applied to systems, projects and individual issues to achieve positive outcomes. In this article,we have  focused  the model on human relationships which are always a key component of appreciative inquiry but not always the subject of the inquiry itself.  

Appreciative inquiry brings out the best in people.

Appreciative inquiry is the opposite of problem-solving, and critical inquiry. What we focus on  positive aspects, we emphasize and amplify them.  Thinking the best of people,  brings out the best in them.

Appreciative Inquiry builds enduring emotional bonds.

Knowing  you are valued and your contributions, right or wrong, have meaning, encourages us to show up with positive intent.  To listen to others and provide our responses. We are willing to be less critical of others because others are less critical of us.

Appreciative Inquiry lays the groundwork for quality engagement.

Practising Appreciative Inquiry as part of the culture creates an environment where people are willing to offer more diverse suggestions.  Confident that others will seek to understand, rather than shoot down an idea that deviates from the status quo.

The following definition of appreciative inquiry is from appreciativeinquiry.case.edu:

“Appreciative Inquiry is the cooperative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them. It involves systematic discovery of what gives a system ‘life’ when it is most effective and capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to heighten positive potential. It mobilizes inquiry through crafting an “unconditional positive question’ often involving hundreds or sometimes thousands of people.”

Cooperrider, D.L. & Whitney, D., “Appreciative Inquiry: A positive revolution in change.” In P. Holman & T. Devane (eds.), The Change Handbook, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., pages 245-263.

Ap-pre’ci-ate, v., 1. valuing; the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us; affirming past and present strengths, successes, and potentials; to perceive those things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems 2. to increase in value, e.g. the economy has appreciated in value. Synonyms: VALUING, PRIZING, ESTEEMING, and HONORING.

In-quire’ (kwir), v., 1. the act of exploration and discovery. 2. To askquestions; to be open to seeing new potentials and possibilities. Synonyms: DISCOVERY, SEARCH, and SYSTEMATIC EXPLORATION, STUDY.

The way we do our work affects the way other people do their work.

As such, each person is key to the sustainability of the organization.

Twenty years ago, Peter Senge described the learning organization as a group of people who are continually enhancing their capabilities to create what they want to create.  This concept  has been acknowledged by organisations, and yet, is rarely invested in.

…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to
create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns
of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and
where people are continually learning to see the whole together.

The social learning theory of Albert Bandura emphasizes the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others.  Social Learning has become a contemporary label for transferring knowledge between individuals on a peer to peer basis.  Social technologies provide a technological conduit for peer to peer knowledge sharing to occur.

The culture and behaviors associated with sharing knowledge  through social learning are poorly developed. Social learning is done predominantly  away from the machine.  It takes place in the informal conversations, behaviors and activities that inform the culture. Technology supports and captures but true social learning is witnessed and adopted by human observation.

Steve Flinn is  Managing Director of ManyWorlds, Inc., an intellectual capital design firm that delivers next generation strategic advice, research, content solutions, and author of the recently published ‘The Learning Layer’. Prior to founding ManyWorlds,  Flinn was a Chief Information Officer, as well as a Vice President of Strategy of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, which was, at that time, the most valuable company in the world.  Steve recognizes that learning to learn better is the only sustainable competitive advantage that builds the value generating the possibilities of any business.

Social awareness and learning from experience can now be built into our IT systems and evolve the knowledge within the organisation more efficiently. Engendering the emergence of an entirely new phenomenon, an evolving network of people and knowledge. The result is a system that can recommend the right individual or item of knowledge to the right person at the right time.

Harold Jarche, in his critique of Steve Flinn’s Learning Layer commented,  “The key difficulty I see in the implementation of a learning layer is getting people to use it. As a layer, it is not integrated into the work tools. Even if socially aware systems collect and analyze data and feed these into the learning layer, the layer has to be used by people.”

Tools can only capture what people share.  Sharing needs to be an enculturated process.  If you embed learning into the organisation,  people who want to do their work well, feel incentivised to participate in learning and sharing. Then, you grow a sustainable culture, with people who feel accountable about how they deliver their work.

Learning is always going to be human centric. If you are not enculturing learning in a way that is accessible, participatory, rewarding and sharable; the vision will remain a vision.

Bandura’s social cognitive theory emphasizes the role of observational learning and social experience as significant in building cultural norms. Without creating a culture where learning, sharing and mutual accountability is fundamental, and valued, how can social learning be effectively implemented,  measured or sustained?

Qualia Soup and Theramin Trees have produced a series of informative videos on transactional analysis.

What is the value of cultivating robust relationships?

Why bother enculturing abstract  ideas  such as authenticity  trust, accountability and willingness?

The value of laying the ground work emerges when it is time for growth and change.

A healthy culture can be engaged with a gentle hand , build a structure  for the  living network  and cultivate it.

In Fritjof Capra’s 2002 book The Hidden Connections, he describes the gentle nudge a wise manager can introduce into a living system to effect the desired response.

A living network responds to disturbances with structural changes, and it chooses both which disturbances to notice  and how to respond.  What people notice depends on who they are as individuals, and on the cultural characteristics of their communities of practice.  A message will get through to them not only because of its volume or frequency but because it is meaningful to them.

Mechanistically oriented managers tend to hold on to the belief that they can control the organization if they understand how all its parts fit together.  Even the daily experience that people’s behavior contradicts their expectations does not make them doubt their basic assumption.  On the contrary, it compels them to investigate the mechanisms of management in greater detail in order to be able to control them.

We are dealing here with a crucial difference between a living system and a machine.  A machine can be controlled; a living system, according to the systemic understanding of life, can only be disturbed.  In other words, organisations cannot be controlled through direct instructions.   To change the conventional style of management requires a shift of perception that is anything but easy, but it also brings great rewards.  Working with the processes inherent in living systems means that we do not need to spend a lot of energy to move an organisation. There is no need to push, pull, or bully it to make it change.  Force or energy are not the issue; the issue is meaning.  Meaningful disturbances will get the organisation`s attention and will trigger structural changes.

Giving meaningful impulses rather than precise instructions may sound far to vague to managers used to striving for efficiency and predictable results,  but it is well known that intelligent, alert people rarely carry out instructions exactly to the letter.  They always modify and reinterpret them, ignore some parts and add others of their own making.  Sometimes, it may be merely a change of  emphasis, but people always respond with new versions of the original instructions.

This is often interpreted as resistance, or even sabotage, but it can be interpreted quite differently.  Living systems always choose what to notice and how to respond.  When people modify instructions they respond creatively to a disturbance, because this is the essence of being alive.