Loren Kielly's capstone project highlights the critical need for effective management in knowledge organizations, emphasizing that success hinges on adapting management styles to accommodate knowledge workers. The research compares traditional management approaches with those suited for knowledge-based environments, concluding that a culture of trust, innovation, and empowerment is essential for maximizing organizational potential. Findings suggest that traditional managers often struggle to implement effective knowledge management practices due to a lack of understanding of the unique dynamics and needs of knowledge workers.

1. The Need for Proper Management in the Knowledge Organization
Loren Kielly
University College University of Denver
Capstone Project
for
Master of Professional Studies
November 19, 2010
_______________________
Granville Jones, MBA
Capstone Advisor
_______________________
Patricia Greer, MBA
Academic Director
Upon the Recommendation of the Department
_______________________
James R. Davis, Ph.D.
Dean

2. Kielly-ii
Abstract
Global knowledge is increasing daily and with it knowledge organizations
utilizing and capitalizing on knowledge. Worker management is critical in
how knowledge is harnessed and organization success. Managers require not
only understanding of knowledge organization meaning and operation, but
also understanding of knowledge worker management styles. Managers
outside knowledge organizations may have management styles considered
traditional in nature but success in a knowledge organization hinges on how
they adapt. The research conducted compares traditional managers and
knowledge managers to create understanding and awareness of differences.
The survey conducted shows data from managers who work in what are
considered knowledge organizations. The data adds valuable information to
existing research providing fresh insight into knowledge management from
those who live it daily.

3. Kielly-iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................. ii
Introduction ........................................................................................1
Review of Literature .............................................................................3
The Organization ..............................................................................4
People ..........................................................................................4
Environment..................................................................................5
Traditional Management.....................................................................8
Management style ..........................................................................8
Understanding the knowledge organization ...................................... 10
Knowledge Management .................................................................. 13
Management style ........................................................................ 13
Understanding the knowledge organization ...................................... 16
Design and Implementation ................................................................ 19
Results .......................................................................................... 22
Discussion...................................................................................... 43
Further Research Areas.................................................................... 47
Conclusion ........................................................................................ 48
References........................................................................................ 51

4. Kielly-1
Introduction
It is no surprise that the world is getting smaller. Technology has
bridged oceans resulting in increased competition for products and services.
To survive against global competition, organizations must be proactive in
anticipating demands for these products and services. Knowledge
Management (KM) is the practice of creating, capturing, transferring, and
accessing the right knowledge and information when needed to make better
decisions, take actions, and deliver results in support of underlying business
strategies (Krishnaveni and Raja 2009). Knowledge management could be
seen as one of these proactive processes for survival. A knowledge
organization is one where most of the work is said to be of an intellectual
nature and where well educated, qualified employees form the greater part
of the workforce (Laise, Migliarese, and Verteramo 2005). These employees
are termed knowledge workers. A knowledge worker is one that creates
value in the organization by acquiring, processing, and providing information
to create solutions and address complex problems (Gargiulo, Gokhan, and
Galunic 2009). Wal-Mart, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM are organizations that
have implemented KM practices and are reaping the benefits. KM allows
these organizations to be better prepared for change, and stay creative and
innovative (Bennet and Bennet 2001) which are essential components to
survival in today’s global economy.

5. Kielly-2
Knowledge Management is not a new phenomenon yet many
organizations do not see results and prosper like the organizations
previously mentioned. Successful organizations understand that KM must be
engrained into the culture of the organization. It is not something that
simply happens by itself. Alberghini, Cricelli, and Grimaldi (2010) talk about
critical success factors in KM. They state that people, process, and
technology are three areas of focus that help ensure KM success. The people
component is very important and includes organizational leadership. Plescan
et al. (2010) added to the importance of people and leadership when they
studied why knowledge organizations like IBM were successful. Plescan et al.
(2010) state that leaders do not understand that people like to follow
informal procedures in such organizations, not manuals. Biswas (2009),
when referring to the organizations culture also noted that one of the most
critical factors affecting the creation, transmission, and maintenance of an
organizations culture is leadership. However, when it comes to leadership
and knowledge management, not all leaders are created equal.
A traditional manager might think that the amount of work the
employee does, or quantity, is more important than the quality. Quantifying
knowledge work is difficult. Amar (2002) refers to this point when talking
about the difficulty for managers to observe knowledge work because it is
not easily observed directly. Because of this lack of understanding, Amar

6. Kielly-3
(2002) brings up the important point that the manager might not even be
qualified to judge the employees work.
If traditional management styles are prevalent in today’s knowledge
organizations, then there could be an argument made that this is why these
organizations are not completely successful. Success in a knowledge
organization could mean a number of things. Transferring and converting
knowledge into new processes, new designs, licenses, patents, and
trademarks are all measures of success in the knowledge organization
(Laise, Migliarese, and Verteramo 2005). Some traditional managers may
not be equipped with the personnel and management skills to lead a
knowledge workforce team. By interviewing managers and employees in the
communications, global electronics, and electrical engineering fields, this
paper will seek to add valuable information to this area.
Review of Literature
There is an overwhelming amount of literature available surrounding
KM from an organization and leadership perspective. An article in
HRMagazine (2009) focuses on the organization and how a culture of trust,
relationships, and dialogue are the building blocks for organizational
knowledge sharing. The article goes on to discuss how leadership at the
organizational level builds the culture of trust, relationships, and dialogue by
promoting idea generation, innovation, openness, risk taking, and a no-
blame attitude in the work place. With this in mind, it is important to

7. Kielly-4
understand how the organization creates such a culture and how
management styles either help or hinder the process.
The Organization
If a KM strategy is to work, the first step is for the organization to
integrate this idea into the culture. The research presented in this paper
shows that there are key areas that the organization can focus on to do this.
These key areas include the people in the organization and the environment
that these people work in.
People. Laise, Migliarese, and Verteramo (2005) state that only
human beings can create new knowledge and that knowledge is the
exclusive output of human activity. For the knowledge organization, this is a
critical assessment. Organizations might focus on technology to create
efficiencies and improve productivity but technology does not create
knowledge that can be used by the organization to promote creativity and
innovation. Fixed information technology solutions are not the solution,
according to Dawes, Cresswell, and Pardo (2009), rather the ability to adapt
and learn from experience and knowledge. Alberghini, Cricelli, and Grimaldi
(2010) agree, stating that that technology is there to enhance the ability of
employees to recreate value added knowledge and increase the company’s
intellectual assets.
To focus on people, successful knowledge organizations put people
first, which enables them to create, share, and use knowledge (Pop et al.

8. Kielly-5
2009). This is accomplished by ensuring that such ideas are part of the
defined organizational goals and engrained into the cultural background, and
communicated clearly to employees (Laise, Migliarese, and Verteramo
2005). This collaborative people focused structure then encourages the
transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Plescan et al.
2010). Krishnaveni and Raja (2009) describe explicit knowledge as that
already known and recorded in the organization, expressed in words and
numbers. Tacit knowledge is personal and hard to formalize. Krishnaveni and
Raja (2009) in their research on why India has a successful knowledge
intensive economy attribute this to the fact that tacit knowledge is being
converted to explicit knowledge. Knowledge creation, state the authors, is
the interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge. The authors also
provide a simple knowledge management life cycle that is followed by these
successful organizations. Referring to knowledge it translates to acquire,
organize, store, access, share, apply, and create. It is a simple yet effective
model for organizations to follow in order to keep people first.
Environment. The environment created in the organization will help
ensure that the people focused knowledge strategies move forward.
Research by Riege and Zulpo (2007) noted the importance of management
in the environment. The authors found that the environment must promote
the passing of knowledge between functional workers and management.
Functional workers are the knowledge creators, not management. The

9. Kielly-6
authors state that managers must facilitate the flow of knowledge, creating
value at the management level because knowledge can now flow up the
chain. Bennet and Bennet (2001) validate this when they found that a major
source of opposition to the creation of a knowledge environment was
management unwilling to give up its decision-making authority and
empower the workforce in such a manner.
The tone that is created in the environment is also an important
variable to keep in mind. Key, Thompson, and McCann (2009) list 6
conditions that are important to the knowledge worker in setting this
environmental tone. They include:
1. Clarity about tasks to perform.
2. The ability to manage themselves.
3. Encouragement of continuous innovation and creativity.
4. Continuous learning.
5. Quality of work over quantity of work.
6. Feeling of being an important asset to the organization.
The feeling of being an asset to the organization has come up in the
research of others as well. Mutsuddi and Mutsuddi (2008) found that
organizations wanting to excel as a knowledge organization need to act in
radically new ways and understand the competitive value of talented
knowledge workers. The authors found that creating an environment with

10. Kielly-7
clear reward structures for performance is critical in improving the ability to
retain, motivate, and utilize the talented knowledge workforce.
Trust is another environmental aspect that must be present in the
knowledge organization in order for strategies to work. HRMagazine (2009)
states that trust, relationships, and dialogue are the foundation for building
organizational knowledge sharing. Dawes, Creswell, and Pardo (2009) also
talk about trust and the importance of developing interpersonal trust. They
go on to discuss the importance of trust to developing a broad and deep
understanding of and capability for engaging in real sharing of knowledge
and information.
It could be said that the environment is influenced by supervisory
models that are in place in the organization. Moran (2010) states that
traditional models of supervision do not work in the knowledge organization.
They go on to discuss that traditional managers do not understand the
quality over quantity mindset of the knowledge worker. In such a case the
author states that supervision models must emphasize collaboration and
professionalism, as well as iterative work structures. To that point Dawes,
Creswell, and Pardo (2009) discuss the need for legal foundation in
organization structures, supportive policies, and innovative forms of
leadership.
The research shows that people and environment are key areas for the
organization to focus on to implement or improve KM strategies. Managers

11. Kielly-8
are a key component in the knowledge organization and important
champions to carry the organizations knowledge strategies through to
completion. The focus will now shift to managers. For the purpose of this
paper it will be important to look at the research surrounding traditional
management and knowledge management.
Traditional Management
Traditional management could mean many things. The research in this
section shows that traditional management might not necessarily be a good
match for the knowledge organization. Management style and basic
understanding of what a knowledge organization is are areas of great
importance for a traditional style manager in a knowledge organization.
Management style. The style of management of the traditional
manager has implications in the knowledge organization. Amar (2002) uses
super leader as an interesting term to describe the traditional style manager.
The super leader is one whose leadership traits include drive, tenacity,
toughness, and confidence. These are all traits perceived as being indicative
of a good leader. However, Amar’s research has found that these traits do
not necessarily mean the leader will perform well. In fact, Amar found that
the super leader traits obliterate creativity and innovation, critical
components of success in the knowledge organization. Bennet and Bennet
(2001) found leaders must give up some of the traditional style traits like

12. Kielly-9
the super leader traits, as well as full authority and sole decision-making in
favor of empowering the knowledge workforce.
As learned in the research of Key, Thompson, and McCann (2009),
knowledge workers perform well in an unstructured environment where they
can manage themselves and are empowered to make important decisions.
To add to the notion of empowerment, Plescan et al. (2010) found that with
traditional style management collaboration and group decisions were
lacking. The authors found that knowledge workers respond better to and
rely heavily on informal procedures, not manuals and step-by-step rules.
Informal procedures, note the authors, are vital to performing the job
because they encourage innovation and creativity.
Informal procedures will not survive when traditional models of
supervision are put in place by management in a knowledge organization
(Moran 2010). Moran found that traditional managers want to see results
and continue to micro-manage and supervise closely, but it is very difficult
to see results in a knowledge organization. Knowledge work, states the
author, is hard to observe directly and in many cases the manager is not
qualified to judge the work. With such tight supervision the idea of
empowerment previously mentioned (Bennet and Bennet 2001) will be
difficult for the knowledge worker.
Good communication methods with employees and involvement at the
functional level are other areas the research finds lacking with traditional

13. Kielly-10
managers. Biswas (2009) found retaining talent to be one of the greatest
challenges in the knowledge organization. Poor communication of strategies
on part of the manager was part of the problem. Biswas (2009) cites holistic
communication as a key area that had to be focused on. Holistic
communication refers to organizational communication systems that help to
formulate individual’s perception about their workplace from an
organizational perspective. Key, Thompson, and McCann (2009) found that
leaders were not building a learning culture, and not contributing at the
functional level. They talk about an active learning environment, which
states that continuous learning is essential and a core responsibility. The
authors found that traditional managers need to show employees that they
are active learners as well, but fail at making this happen. They state it is
due to the fact that managers are not making knowledge accessible. This
could be due to the fact that in traditional style management, information is
kept close and secret, shared only on a need to know basis (Amar 2002).
Keeping information from flowing is not a strategy in a knowledge
organization and could mean management simply does not understand what
the knowledge organization is.
Understanding the knowledge organization. Earlier in this paper
the focus was on the organization and how people and environment are
important to creating a knowledge organization. While the concepts
discussed in each area are important at the organization level, they are

14. Kielly-11
nothing if at the management level a culture of knowledge sharing is not
created and encouraged (Bennet and Bennet 2001). As early as 1998 Fahey
and Prusak (1998) noted that out of 11 deadliest sins in a knowledge
organization, number one was manager’s not taking the time to understand
and define what knowledge is. So how then could such a manager succeed
in a knowledge organization?
Quite simply, people and environment are again center stage. They
are two key areas that traditional managers must understand with regard to
knowledge organizations. Regarding people, Laise, Migliarese, and
Verteramo (2005) make the point that failure results from not understanding
and underestimating the human dimension in the knowledge organization.
Laise, Migliarese, and Verteramo (2005) also found that since only people
create new knowledge, they must be part of the business strategies of
management. However, research by Bennet and Bennet (2001), Key,
Thompson, and McCann (2009), Riege and Zulpo (2007), and Parris,
Vickers, and Wilkes (2008) found quite the opposite. The authors found
management unwilling to give up decision-making power and authority in
favor of empowering employees. Their research also found a resistance to
new processes and structures that promote a knowledge culture, enhancing
the knowledge organization. In such a scenario, Parris, Vickers, and Wilkes
(2008) found that managers who resist such processes and structures find
themselves working longer hours with increased burnout rates.

15. Kielly-12
Dawes, Creswell, and Pardo (2009) point to interpersonal trust as a
key ingredient in promoting the knowledge culture. The author’s research
found that by having trust in employees managers are able to put
professional policies in place that allows for knowledge to flow through the
organization easily. The environment then could be said to promote the flow
of knowledge.
The environment can be influenced in many ways to allow for
knowledge flow. Amar (2002) found that a key distraction for employees
include environment variables. These could come in the form of multiple
meetings, strict rules and policies that they have to follow, and specific
hours to work, to name a few. According to Amar (2002) it is the job of the
manager to remove these environment variables thus allowing the employee
to fully focus on the task at hand. Pop et al. (2009) discuss the need for
knowledge audits to identify where specific needs are or to simply check
team morale, which is very important. Pop et al. (2009) also found that the
environment should focus on encouraging constant learning, and allow for
people to connect with people easily so that knowledge can subsequently
flow uninterrupted. To the traditional manager, this means removing
controls and rules around how to work, and also encourages the removal of
classes of workers which may inhibit knowledge flow and person-to-person
collaboration (Amar 2002). The research of Gargiulo, Gokhan, and Galunic
(2009) uncovered similar data. Informal networks, state the authors, are

16. Kielly-13
important to the knowledge worker in that they allow the workers to create
value by acquiring, processing, and providing information to create solutions
to complex problems.
The research in this section shows that management style and basic
understanding of a knowledge organization are important areas of concern
for the traditional manager. By understanding these concepts and how their
relation to knowledge organization could affect the success of that
organization, managers might be made aware of errors or areas of
improvement. What then does a knowledge manager look like when
compared to a traditional manager? The research in the next section focuses
on knowledge managers and could serve as a guide to helping traditional
managers who may have found errors in their own styles.
Knowledge Management
Knowledge management, defined by Krishnaveni and Raja (2009), is
the practice of creating, capturing, transferring, and accessing the right
knowledge and information when needed to make better decisions, take
actions, and deliver results in support of underlying business strategies. The
research in this section takes a look at the knowledge manager, working
inside this definition. When compared to the traditional manager, the
research will show differences in management style and understanding of
the knowledge organization and it’s strategies.

17. Kielly-14
Management style. Soliman and Spooner (2000) list what they feel
are key characteristics of a knowledge manager. The characteristics include:
1. Interpersonal communication skills
2. Passionate visionary leadership
3. Business acumen
4. Strategic thinking skills
5. Champion of change with the ability to withstand ambiguity and
uncertainty
6. Collaborative skills (this is a rare skill and is the ability to pull
together people from different parts of the organization to work as
one team).
Knowledge managers use these characteristics and skills in a manner that
supports the knowledge organization. For instance, the knowledge manager
understands that traditional authoritative leadership is not favored with the
knowledge worker, and so is willing and able to give up authority and
decision making power in an effort to empower employees (Bennet and
Bennet 2001). With good communication and collaboration ability,
knowledge managers are able to pass on tasks to employees with clarity so
there is a definite understanding of what needs to be accomplished (Key,
Thompson, and McCann 2009). The common characteristic with the
mentioned examples is the employee, so understanding the knowledge

18. Kielly-15
worker becomes a very important aspect of how the knowledge manager
performs the job.
An important audience to understand for the knowledge manager is
Generation X and Y. The research of Amar (2002) showed a definite
difference in work styles compared to the generations before them. The
knowledge manager understands that these audiences feel they can handle
any situation, with success as the only option (Amar 2002). Amar also found
that for Generations X and Y, knowledge is technology, and not something
that is gained from previous generations through traditional methods. The
knowledge manager then ensures that the environment promotes the proper
technology and the sharing of knowledge through venues like online
collaboration.
As previously stated, technological tools are only good if they enhance
the ability of employees to recreate value-added knowledge and increase the
company’s intellectual asset (Alberghini, Cricelli, and Grimaldi 2010), which
is the case with Generation X and Y. Research by HRMagazine (2009)
verified this by stating that understanding generational differences is crucial.
Their research found that baby boomers like face-to-face interaction, while
Generation X and Y prefer interactive virtual interaction. The authors also
noted a few key areas to consider when it comes to the understanding the
knowledge worker.
1. Ensuring that the worker is free from environmental constraints.

19. Kielly-16
2. Ensuring morale is good by instituting checks and balances.
3. Importance of risk taking and a no blame culture.
4. Earning respect rather than demanding it.
Some of these key areas might carry over into organizational strategies in
the knowledge organizations, which is the focus of the next section.
Knowledge management style could be seen as different from a traditional
standpoint but the management style, as the research shows, helps the
knowledge organization succeed. Knowledge managers also have a keen
understanding of what exactly the knowledge organization means.
Understanding the knowledge organization. A knowledge
manager understands what it takes to succeed in a knowledge organization.
For example the knowledge manager understands that culture is at the core
of success, and that changing that culture is very important (Bennet and
Bennet 2001). Bennet and Bennet (2001) also share the fact that a
knowledge manager plays a very large part in ensuring that the vision,
purpose, and goals of the knowledge organization are clear to all employees.
This sentiment is shared be Alberghini, Cricelli, and Grimaldi (2010) who
state that the strategic purpose of KM must be identified and understood by
all. Alberghini, Cricelli, and Grimaldi (2010) found that by understanding
three critical success factors in KM, managers are able to ensure culture is
created. These three factors include:

20. Kielly-17
1. People – leadership, a vision actively promoted by top management,
and culture, the combination of shared history, expectations, unwritten
rules, and social customs that influence perception.
2. Process – systems and procedures to promote efficient execution and
adherence to policies.
3. Technology – collaborative and people oriented technology.
Again, the common denominator seems to be people. Knowledge managers
understand how to correctly manage knowledge workers, as learned in the
previous section, and use these three success factors in their strategies. Also
related to culture, Moran (2010) found that successful knowledge managers
were able to create a work environment that was not constrained by the
attitude of “get it right the first time”. Moran found an environment that was
iterative and promoted experimenting with a try and try again attitude,
ultimately promoted creativity and innovation in the knowledge organization.
Failure then, was not frowned upon, but rather part of the knowledge
experience.
A key factor in a knowledge organizations culture is how knowledge
flows. Rather than traditional tiers of knowledge transfer a knowledge
manager allows information to flow in the environment via a no-fuss,
personal, face-to-face interaction, which fosters ease and frequency of
knowledge exchange (Riege and Zulpo 2007). Dawes, Creswell, and Pardo
(2009) add interpersonal trust as a key element in this environment, noting

21. Kielly-18
that knowledge managers have the correct skills and attitudes to enable it.
The authors found that such managers have the ability to understand,
engage in, and promote the real sharing of knowledge and information with
their knowledge workers. To the points listed, Pop et al. (2009) list key
areas that knowledge manager’s must focus. They include:
1. Knowledge audits to identify needs.
2. Knowledge strategies.
3. Connect people with people to share tacit knowledge.
4. Connect people with information to share explicit knowledge.
5. Create opportunities to generate new knowledge.
6. Encourage learning.
7. Encourage knowledge sharing by story telling.
Such areas of focus enable knowledge to flow since people are the focus,
and collaboration is a result.
While keeping the flow of knowledge moving is a very important part
of the knowledge organization, so to is keeping the knowledge worker
happy. As discussed earlier, reward structures might be different depending
on the generation of the worker. Mutsuddi and Mutsuddi (2008) in their
research on retaining talent in the knowledge organization list key points
that knowledge managers consider. They include:
- Offering the right compensation, including proper reward recognition.
- Conducing meaningful performance appraisals.

22. Kielly-19
- Designing jobs to appeal to the talented people.
- Assigning the right talent to the right jobs.
- Providing proper training, development, and succession planning.
- Creating a challenging environment or excitement in jobs.
- Providing unassigned time to seed and cultivate creative ideas.
- Foster social bonds.
Of the points listed a key consideration for the knowledge manager is proper
reward structures. Amar (2002) stresses the need to implement proper
reward structures, clearly defining them in such a way that they are
meaningful to that particular audience.
This section provided an analysis of KM by taking a look at how
knowledge managers are successful. Management style and an
understanding of the knowledge organization are two key areas of research
focus in this area. By considering the previous section, which took a look at
the same two areas from a traditional management standpoint, conclusions
can be made as to the differences and or similarities between a knowledge
manager and a traditional manager. The next section seeks to add to the
research here by collecting data from knowledge managers in various types
of knowledge organizations.
Design and Implementation
In order to add valuable research to the field of KM and to try and
prove the hypothesis that some traditional managers may not be equipped

23. Kielly-20
with the personnel and management skills to lead a knowledge workforce
team, a survey was conducted. The Institutional Review Board approved the
survey on September 07th, 2010. Managers in knowledge organizations were
identified and contacted by email to determine their availability, interest,
and time to complete the survey. Once a manager responded back indicating
willingness to participate an email was sent which included a brief
description of the project and what to expect. Also included with this email
were two Microsoft Word documents. One was the project description,
explaining the purpose of the project and providing any needed context for
the manager. The other was a consent form that was completed and
returned.
Organizations represented by the manager’s cover the fields of global
communication, global electronics, electrical engineering, medical
technology, international banking, web technology and software, and
government services. A knowledge organization is one where most of the
work is said to be of an intellectual nature and where well educated,
qualified employees form the greater part of the workforce (Laise,
Migliarese, and Verteramo 2005). By definition, each of the companies
chosen could be considered a knowledge organization. The results of the
survey were meant to show the managers understanding of a knowledge
organization and try to gather data around whether they see a difference
between a knowledge manager and a traditional manager. The managers

24. Kielly-21
were not asked directly what they considered themselves to be. How the
questions were answered could help determine this. Another goal of the
survey was to find out if there really is a perceived difference between a
knowledge manager and a traditional manager, and if so, where does the
traditional manager need improvement in order to be successful in the
organization.
The survey was hosted by a free online service called Survey Monkey
(http://www.surveymonkey.com). It consisted of the following 10 questions:
1. What does a knowledge organization mean to you?
2. What does knowledge management mean to you?
3. In what ways would you say that your organization is a knowledge
organization?
4. In what ways are managers outside of a knowledge organization
different from managers in a knowledge organization?
5. What strategies do you use as a manager to promote creativity and
innovation?
6. Explain why these strategies are successful or not in your
organization?
7. What is the most important management trait to promote success in
your knowledge organization?
8. In your experience as a manager, in what ways are employees in a
knowledge organization different?

25. Kielly-22
9. How could a traditional style manager be effective leading a team of
knowledge workers?
10. If your organization were to hire or promote a manager, what would
you say are the most critical characteristics they should look for?
Each question required short essay answers providing ample space for the
manager to write their ideas. The goal was to have responses from 10
managers for analysis. Each question seeks to gain knowledge as to how the
manager understands knowledge organizations and KM, given that they
work for a knowledge organization. The first eight questions deal specifically
with knowledge management, seeking valuable information from the
manager. Question nine introduces the traditional management term. This is
meant to get the manager thinking about knowledge management and
traditional management, to see if the manager observes and believes each
as different. Question ten, the final question, directly asks the manager what
management traits the company would be looking for should it hire a
manager, an exploratory question to build off of perceived differences
between traditional and knowledge managers from the previous question.
Results. The survey results show about a 64 percent return. Of the 14
survey invitations sent to managers identified in knowledge organizations, 9
responded. Of those 9 respondents, 1 individual did not completely finish the
survey, resulting in 8 completely filled out surveys. An analysis of each
question follows in this section. Highlighted are key words or phrases that

26. Kielly-23
helped provide clarity in the answers, and are also commonly found in the
research.
Question 1 directly asks the manager what they feel a knowledge
organization is. Table 1.0 shows the answers for each of the managers. The
answers seem to show an understanding of knowledge organizations, with
some very good explanations. Manager 4, while not directly stating so,
touched on explicit and implicit knowledge, an important trait of knowledge
organizations explained in the literature review. Manager 6 decided to
challenge the definition of a knowledge organization provided in the project
information document. The definition provided by this manager 6 seems to
be one based on much experience and a deep passion for knowledge
organizations. With similar, yet unique responses it was clear that the
managers had an understanding based on unique work experiences. All
definitions basically stayed in line with the definition of a knowledge
organization by Laise, Migliarese, and Verteramo (2005), in that a
knowledge organization is one where most of the work is said to be of an
intellectual nature and where well educated, qualified employees form the
greater part of the workforce. An understanding of knowledge organizations
is certainly an important factor in trying to prove the hypothesis stated in
this paper.

27. Kielly-24
Table 1.0 – What does a knowledge organization mean to you?
Manager Response
1 I understand a knowledge organization to focus on ideas,
the development of new products and strategies, and
intellectual property.
2 A company that has niche skills, heavy focus on IP and
services
3 One that derives its economic value from a series of
activities that are primarily information based rather than
manufacturing
4 A knowledge organization is a group of people that have
the common goal of capturing data, interactions,
communications, and experience and translating that
into usable and accessible information that results in
increased efficiencies and archival references. Note, I
consider a knowledge organization to be a department or
company.
5 I believe it is just that, on organization of knowledge that
is focused on a singular topic/field
6 I don't buy Laise's definition of a "knowledge
organization." It sounds more like the definition of a
university or a "think tank." To me, a knowledge
organization is one that intentionally treats its collective
intelligence, data, and know-how as assets to be
managed and reused. It has formal and informal
methods for capturing information inside and outside its
boundaries and turning it to productive use. A traditional
manufacturing business can be a knowledge organization
as much as any other organization, though "most of the
work" would not be considered "of an intellectual
nature." If the manufacturing operation intentionally puts
its collective intelligence to work to improve
performance, then it's a knowledge organization. If it
seeks external information (training, best practice
research, etc.), and it puts that to work to improve
operations, then it's a knowledge organization.
7 Based on the definition provided in the prep materials, I
would say that a knowledge organization is an institution
of higher education. But I'd also say that a knowledge
organization is one that utilizes intellectual property as
its product, rather than a manufactured product.
However, there could (should) be multiple knowledge

28. Kielly-25
Table 1.0 – What does a knowledge organization mean to you?
(continued)
Manager Response
organizations within an organization that manufactures
products as well.
8 An organization that bases its operation on research and
data to effectively manages and implements its day-to-
day operations.
9 A knowledge organization is one where the company
recognizes the importance of and utilizes knowledge as a
key competitive advantage. As such it mindfully pursues
strategies, tactics, and designs structures to maximize
the value of its knowledge.
Question 2 asks the question of what KM is. Those results are listed in
Table 2.0. The results show that all managers have a basic understanding of
KM. Referring to the definition by Krishnaveni and Raja (2009), KM is the
practice of creating, capturing, transferring, and accessing the right
knowledge and information when needed to make better decisions, take
actions, and deliver results in support of underlying business strategies. All
the managers seemed to stay in line with this definition. Given the fact that
all these managers worked in different industries, the definitions given were
fairly close helping prove that the term is certainly known. Manager 6 had an
interesting comment stating that KM is the management of wisdom, rather
than data. Reflecting on the research by Krishnaveni and Raja (2009) this is
not completely accurate. Wisdom is considered tacit knowledge, while data
could be seen as explicit knowledge. Krishnaveni and Raja (2009) in their
research on why India has a successful knowledge intensive economy

29. Kielly-26
attribute this to the fact that tacit knowledge is being converted to explicit
knowledge for use. Data then, is an important part of this wisdom as well, in
that wisdom can be converted to data making it accessible to the
organization.
Table 2.0 – What does knowledge management mean to you?
Manager Response
1 Knowledge management means managing in a way that
makes use of data and statistics to govern decision
making, not just using knee jerk reactions or "gut"
feelings.
2 I would say that knowledge management is the capturing
of ideas and the continued fostering of creative idea
generation. In addition, you'll need to eventually prove
the worth of the ideas, therefore knowledge management
could mean target creative idea generation toward a
specific goal (i.e.; solving a specific problem) so it has a
purpose and perhaps measurable goals.
3 It is the intentional cultivation of know-how and
innovation to improve processes, products, services,
people, or anything else relevant to the organization's
mission.
4 The management of the data, that effectively increases
the knowledge of particular field of study
5 Knowledge management is the processes that an
organization follows to create usable information,
archived experience, and intellectual property.
6 Collective management of "wisdom" rather than data
7 The ability to manage and leverage information and data
that maximizes a company's ability to generate revenue
and increase profits
8 I understand knowledge management to refer to
managing the product development through processes,
development, tracking etc. I also think that education /
marketplace awareness plays a major role.
9 Management is the act of mindfully pursuing strategies,
tactics, and structural design of the organization to
maximize the value attained from the knowledge in the
organization.

30. Kielly-27
Question 3 asks the manager what ways that the organization they
work for is a knowledge organization. Those results are listed in Table 3.0.
The results provide great insight into why each of the organizations could be
seen as knowledge organizations. Manager 6 summed it up well noting that
their organization relies heavily on collective knowledge and expertise.
Exploring data and using that knowledge to make decisions and create new
ideas was another area that each organization seemed to touch in. Manager
9 also made a very interesting point. With downsizing in that particular
company it was noted that individuals with certain knowledge were to be
retained, showing the importance of knowledge to that organization even in
times of crisis.
Table 3.0 – In what ways would you say that your organization is a
Knowledge Organization?
Manager Response
1 My organization is not solely a knowledge organization. I
would say that the new product development realm does
focus on ideas, strategies and implementation to
compete in the marketplace.
2 We are a services company with capabilities that can be
leveraged across our organization and with skill sets and
experiences that are not "product" based, but knowledge
based
3 We are a services based organization - we have no
tangible product, our ability to command above
commodity pricing is based on our collective knowledge
4 The organization I work for is a knowledge organization
in that it translates and simplifies numerous data points
into usable information by consumers.
5 My organization/company is the leader in our industry
and is always looking for new and better ways to deliver

31. Kielly-28
Table 3.0 – In what ways would you say that your organization is
a Knowledge Organization? (continued)
Manager Response
our services to our customers, using past experiences
and tying them to new technologies. Essentially, we are
focused singularly on delivering 911 better than anyone
else.
6 We have to constantly draw on each other’s expertise to
create the best deliverables for our projects. We are very
intentional in reusing collective intelligence (employees,
contractors, industry experts, etc.). We also demand that
decisions are backed up by logical arguments. Reasoning
needs to be transparent and defensible. If we can't do
this internally, then we can't do it for our customers.
7 The higher level strategic consultation. Forming a
partnership with your clients that fosters ideas and
problem solving. These are the things that create solid
trusting relationships. Being an extension of my clients'
business. So in-tuned with their market that I can assist
them in heading off competitive threats or leveraging
opportunities they don't see themselves.
8 It relies on hard data to make many decisions. But it also
relies on an in depth knowledge of the individual to
determine how they will perform in particular situations.
It also requires a firm grasp on all the minute aspects of
the Organization.
9 Our organization relies a lot on historic knowledge. We
have the added challenge of having to reduce our
headcount substantially. We have sought to retain certain
key individuals with knowledge, have needed to gather
from outside sources additional knowledge. In addition
we have had to implement new processes that
substantially reduce our cost, can support a reduced
scale, yet still allow us access to historic records to
enhance our knowledge.
Question 4 asks the manager what ways managers outside of a
knowledge organization might be different from managers in a knowledge
organization. Those results are listed in Table 4.0. Focus was a key word for

32. Kielly-29
a few of the managers. For example, manager 2 noted that outside the
knowledge organization managers might be operationally and tactically
focused rather than synergistic focused. The focus on new ideas and direct
focus on goals were important differentiators in the knowledge organization.
Manager 9 made an interesting comment stating that there are no managers
outside a knowledge organization, and that it is the awareness and usage of
knowledge that separates the two. This shows the importance of knowledge
to the manager. Another important response to note is that of manager 3.
Thinking process and management process was noted by manager 3 as
differences between two. The research provided in the literature review
certainly helps solidify this point, noting differences in thinking and
management between the knowledge manager and the traditional manager.
Table 4.0 – In what ways are managers outside of a knowledge
organization different from managers in a knowledge organization?
Manager Response
1 Manager outside of a knowledge organization will focus
more on tangibles, what exists today and how to achieve
quarterly results. While managers in a product
organization are focused on new ideas, determining what
possible and developing products to help companies
compete in the marketplace.
2 I would categorize it broadly as more operationally and
tactically focused and less synergistic focused.
3 Thinking process, management process
4 Managers outside of a knowledge organization are
consumers of information while managers inside a
knowledge organization are producers of information.
5 Seems their is a more direct focus in a knowledge
organization

33. Kielly-30
Table 4.0 – In what ways are managers outside of a knowledge
organization different from managers in a knowledge
organization? (continued)
Manager Response
6 Managers who intentionally drive employees to learn and
improve what they do have to be knowledge managers at
some level. There are plenty of examples of managers
who make decisions based on unexamined past
experience and/or unexamined industry standards. A
knowledge manager is constantly skeptical of the
received wisdom of an industry or past experience.
7 Managers within Knowledge Organizations should be
encouraging creative thought. I say "should" because
this doesn't always happen even in organizations that
think of themselves as knowledge organizations. They
typically ask you for ideas but really just want you to do
your job. On the flip side, managers outside knowledge
organizations communicate specific roles and
requirements of their employees and expect the job to
get done per the "proven" system that they have laid
out. Knowledge Organizations approach situation with
the goal in mind first, rather than the system. There are
multiple ways to accomplish your goal. The knowledge
organization recognized that and measures the outcome
rather than the process.
8 Outside a KO managers may make decisions without
knowing all the facts or simply making a quick decision in
order to push things through. It may also mean delaying
a decision if they are unsure of what to do...and do not
have the necessary data in front of them to make an
informed and educated decision.
9 There are no managers outside of a knowledge
organization. It's more a matter of if they realize the
importance of knowledge within their organization. It is
the awareness of the importance of knowledge that
differentiates the two managers. If a manager is aware
of it and the importance of it, their actions will be
influenced by their awareness of the importance of it. It
will be a consideration in decisions that are made.

34. Kielly-31
Question 5 asks the manager strategies they employ to promote
creativity and innovation. Those results are listed in Table 5.0. Referring
back to the research of Key, Thompson, and McCann (2009),
encouragement of creativity and innovation are very important elements of
success in the knowledge organization. Communication was a common
answer among the managers. Various communication methods to promote
collaboration were employed as well. Manager 1 used brown bag sessions to
communicate successes and ideas; while manager 6 employed 3-4 hour
meetings once a week in which employees collaborated on ideas using facts
and research to back those ideas. Manager 7 made an interesting point, and
one in line with knowledge organizations, in that he encouraged employees
to re-assess and realign their plans and methods to achieve goals. Another
key strategy, used by manager 5 was to include individual reward structures
in strategies, which are important to keeping knowledge workers interested
and feel like an important part of the team. An interesting point was made
by manager 9 who stated that his company is not currently in a position to
promote creativity and innovation but he encourages communication and
knowledge sharing across disciplines in the organization.
Table 5.0 – What strategies do you use as a manager to promote
creativity and innovation?
Manager Response
1 1. Communication

35. Kielly-32
Table 5.0 – What strategies do you use as a manager to promote
creativity and innovation? (continued)
Manager Response
2 Brown bag sessions to share project successes,
development of sales/marketing collateral that can be
used across accounts, networking sessions with other
people in different internal groups to drive discussions
and ideation
3 1) challenge thinking 2) challenge norms 3) performance
incentives for creativity 4) carve out time 5) stimulate
interests
4 As a manager, the primary strategy for promoting
creativity and innovation is by giving a direction and
letting people have the ability to determine the best path
to follow.
5 First, I think CLEAR communication is required to
promote "the team". In addition, I like to recognize team
members individually, and I hold team members
accountable for actions, I like to set parameters for team
members to make some decisions on their own.
6 All members of a project team need to meet face-to-face
at least once every week and work for 3-4 hours together
in the same room. Prior to the meeting, an agenda is set
that includes topics for collective discussion and decision.
We also demand rational explanations for design choices.
You can't say, "I just like this better." You have to
articulate a position that can be understood by others.
You need to make the logic of your reasoning transparent
to the group. That exposes whether or not someone is
working off of personal opinion (unexamined experience)
or actually pulling in supporting sources to their thinking.
7 I ask my teams to continually re-assess and align their
plans and their tasks with the goal at hand. Whether that
may be to sell more products, save money, acquire new
clients within a particular vertical, etc. I communicate the
barriers/parameters at hand (budget, schedule, client
requests, objective, etc.). Try my best to attach that to a
measurable number that can be evaluated at the end.
Then ask them to get it done. That's not entirely true
though, I try to lead them down the "right" path based
on my knowledge of the most efficient process that has

36. Kielly-33
Table 5.0 – What strategies do you use as a manager to promote
creativity and innovation? (continued)
Manager Response
been successful for me. I'm hesitant to push "my way"
too much, because who am I to say that it's the best
way. Sometimes I even specifically say that. It really
depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes things can
be under a very tight time line which don't allow for a
new approach and possibly wasted time or budget. But, I
first try to allow the exploration and self-driven learning
to provide my team the platform for discovering a better
way.
8 We implement our techniques and strategies with a
governing system, but allow the co-workers (or
teammates) to collaboratively figure out other options
and to think for themselves. We also encourage thinking
outside the box. We also ask thought provoking
questions that develops other aspects of their life,
besides there job, so that they feel a sense of being
wanted and cared for. We also try to determine what
strategies work best for each person, not just globally
implementing a strategy. We believe in fairness but no
equality.
9 Our current situation doesn't allow for a lot of creativity
and innovation. However, I think the two most important
strategies is promoting communication across multiple
disciplines and multiple levels of an organization, and
encouraging listing and discussions. In addition, I think it
is important to push individuals out of their normal
surroundings to encourage them to experience new
things.
Question 6 asks the manager whether the strategies noted in question
5 are successful or not. Those results are listed in Table 6.0. Note that
manager 1 chose did not give a response to the question. The strategies
employed by the managers were noted as successful. The nature of
collaboration and communication strategies allows the organization to evolve

37. Kielly-34
and adapt, as noted by manager 4. Manager 5 and 7 note that the freedom
of work environment leads to employees who feel appreciated, satisfied, and
in control. It is important to note as well that two manages, 7 and 8, found
that the knowledge management strategies were somewhat
counterproductive. The reason given was that some employees simply do
not work well in an environment with such strategies, needing more
structure, guidelines to follow, and solid expectations.
Table 6.0 – Explain why these strategies are successful or not in
your organization.
Manager Response
1 No response.
2 They are successful b/c they drive networking and
relationship building. In a knowledge company, knowing
where the knowledge is is 90% of the challenge. You
don't have to know something specifically, but rather,
know where to go to find that specific information.
3 We have the critical mass, culture, and funding to allow
these activities
4 In my organization, many of the products we are building
are constantly evolving based on healthcare legislation
therefore people need to have flexibility.
5 Team members appreciate the ability to be accountable
for their areas, as well as, the recognition for a job well
done. In addition, communication both on a professional
level as well as a personal level increases team member’s
sense of appreciation.
6 As a consulting organization, we have to convince
ourselves first before we take anything forward to a
client.
7 They are successful in the form of employee satisfaction.
I work with many smart and creative people that enjoy
looking at things differently and pride themselves that
they do so. Without that freedom and ability to think,
they are stifled and feel under-valued. Plus, I get some

38. Kielly-35
Table 6.0 – Explain why these strategies are successful or not in
your organization. (continued)
Manager Response
pretty crazy new ideas and a few good laughs from time
to time! The bad is that sometimes the outcome is not on
target and now we're in panic mode because it's due an
hour ago! That can be headed off with good
management, not overbearing management, but a
helpful assisted management. Another negative that I've
discovered is that some people's minds just don't work
this way. Some very bright and capable people thrive in
structured, orchestrated environments and fall apart in a
fluid environment that requires adaptability.
8 These strategies tend to be successful as co-workers
become motivated to reach their potential...and are
eager to have themselves as well as the group be
successful. Sometimes they can be counterproductive as
not all employees work great in an open atmosphere, and
work better with strict guidelines and expectations.
9 They have been successful. First, it encourages thinking
through problems more thoroughly. If I am going to
bring an idea to a group, I am going to try to think a little
more about what issues the group may have with the
idea beforehand. In addition, everyone has a new
perspective, a user, an implementer, a manager, and a
vendor. Those perspectives can provide a more complete
view of the problem and solutions than one individual.
Question 7 asks the manager what is the most important trait to
promoting success in the knowledge organization. Those results are listed in
Table 7.0. Note that manager 1 chose did not give a response to the
question. Communication was the common trait among many of the
managers as being important to promote success. Discipline to follow
knowledge management processes was noted as important by manager 4.
Manager 6 brought up accountability and standing behind decisions.

39. Kielly-36
Manager 9 simply says that the ability to listen is most important, a trait
backed by manager 7 who feels that the manager must understand he/she is
not the smartest person in the room so it is important to consider carefully
ideas and suggestions of employees.
Table 7.0 – What is the most important trait to promote success in
your knowledge organization?
Manager Response
1 No response.
2 Communication and relationship building is foundational,
but being able to deliver and be highly flexible in very
challenging client environments is also a must. There is
not one trait that matters, but rather, a comprehensive
set of skills that someone must have to be successful.
3 Ability to manage cross silo through impact and influence
4 The most important management trait is discipline. Many
people will not take the time to follow processes to create
knowledge based on their experience (and creativity).
5 I believe the most important trait to promote success is
communication
6 Demand that people be able to articulate clear reasons
for the decisions that they make. It's imperative to hold
everyone (including yourself) accountable to this level of
dialog.
7 You are not the smartest person in the room and you are
not the only one that has an answer that WILL solve the
problem. Shut your mouth and listen. Be honest in asking
for opinions. Just be honest all together. Form a team,
not a company of workers. When people are passionate
and enjoy what they do, you get a lot better ideas and
harder workers that give a damn. You need walk very
delicately around people's ideas. It takes a lot of courage
for someone to voice his or her ideas. If they get shot
down or patronized, they may be hesitant next time to
voice the idea that turns water into wine.
8 The ability to maintain communication with
members...and an ability to make members feel that

40. Kielly-37
Table 7.0 – What is the most important trait to promote success in
your knowledge organization? (continued)
Manager Response
they are valued and that what they are doing makes a
difference, and that they have a say in the direction of
the organization.
9 The ability to listen and broker solutions.
Question 8 asks the manager how employees in a knowledge
organization are different based on their management experiences. Those
results are listed in Table 8.0. Note that manager 1 chose did not give a
response to the question. The answers by all the managers seem to set the
tone that being ready to adapt to change is a key trait of knowledge
employees. Managers 2 and 6 in particular mention adapting to change,
running with new ideas, and not clinging to the past way of doing things
even in the face of evidence showing those ways do not work. Another good
point brought up by manager 6, 7, and 9 is that these employees constantly
ask why, sparking collaborative conversation, and questioning ‘settled’ ways
of thinking. Manager 7 sums it up well, noting that knowledge employees
like to explore, discover, and learn while they create.
Table 8.0 – In your experience as a manager, in what ways are
employees in a knowledge organization different?
Manager Response
1 No response.
2 More adaptive to change, quick to pick up new ideas and

41. Kielly-38
Table 8.0 – In your experience as a manager, in what ways are
employees in a knowledge organization different? (continued)
Manager Response
apply them to the business context
3 How they are motivated and what provides fulfillment
4 In most cases employees in a knowledge organization or
more detailed and more disciplined to follow process.
5 I believe there is more finite focus.
6 Employees who want to cling to a past even as all
evidence points to a different future don't survive in
organizations that intentionally cultivate know-how and
innovation. On the contrary, employees who constantly
seek career growth through continuous learning tend to
do well in knowledge organizations. There are 2 key
qualities we look for: First, employees need to put aside
their desire to always have the right answer before
contributing to a discussion. The need to be willing to
"think out loud" in front of a group in order to further the
discussion. Second, they need to be willing to question
prevailing, settled thinking. They need to do it
collaboratively and publicly so as to further the progress
of whatever task is at hand.
7 They ask why. They realize that there isn't just one way
to do things. They reinvent what they do everyday. They
can't settle. They get bored quickly. They're energized by
the unpredictable. They like to explore, discover and
learn, while they create.
8 They tend to better understand the decisions that get
made, and realize that even though not all decisions are
popular, sometimes they are necessary. They have a
belief that what is being done is fair...and believe that
they are part of something bigger...not just a hamster on
a wheel.
9 They have access to lots information. They are expected
to and seek to know about their organization beyond
their own realm of immediate duties. They are always
curious and willing to contribute ideas.

42. Kielly-39
Question 9 asks the manager an important question directly related to
the hypothesis. The question of whether a traditional manager would be
effective in leading a team of knowledge workers is asked. Those results are
listed in Table 9.0. Note that managers 1 and 5 chose did not give a
response to the question. Four of the managers pointed out that they did not
really know what the term traditional manager meant. However, they go on
to provide their thoughts on the topic, with each of them describing a
traditional manager in a similar way, with characteristics of being the sole
decision maker or being a ‘command and control’ type leader rather than a
teammate. These explanations are all in agreement with the research
provided on traditional management in the literature review.
The underlying theme in all the responses seem to be that the
traditional manager must understand how the knowledge worker performs
day-to-day, as noted by manager 2. This means, as manager 4 explains,
that the manager must have processes in place that allow the capturing of
data, interactions, communications, and experiences. So creating the
environment, as described in the literature review, becomes a very
important part of the manager’s job. To add to the environment, managers 8
and 9 note that being a teammate rather than a simple ‘leader’ becomes
important to the knowledge worker. Manager 8 specifically says moving
away from a ‘my way or the highway’ attitude, and listening to the ideas of
the team. Manager 9 extends the notion of becoming a listener, adding

43. Kielly-40
encouragement of communication, teamwork, and sharing of duties.
Manager 6 describes the traditional leader as having to become a guide,
creating the environment where the employee can thrive, while at the same
time guiding their energy in the right way toward larger business goals.
Manager 3 makes the point of saying that many traditional managers
already lead knowledge workers. He says that traditional structures are not
the enemy rather senseless structures that might be in place in the
traditional environment. The important thing is to create an environment
where the employee processes and structures add and create value in the
organization.
Table 9.0 – How could a traditional manager be effective leading a
team of knowledge workers?
Manager Response
1 No response.
2 I think they can be effective, but they have to
understand how a knowledge worker functions day-to-
day, understand how they best communicate and
leverage the tools that they use.
3 Many traditional style managers already lead knowledge
workers - structure is not the enemy, senseless structure
is the enemy - focus on value creating activities
4 By implementing process that people can follow to
capture data, interactions, communication, and
experience within the employee’s workflow.
5 No response.
6 It's hard to know what "traditional style manager"
means. But I would say that a manager in a knowledge
organization needs to be comfortable with managing
people who have more know-how than he does. He
needs to create an environment where they can thrive.

44. Kielly-41
Table 9.0 – How could a traditional manager be effective leading a
team of knowledge workers? (continued)
Manager Response
But his job typically becomes guiding their energy toward
larger business goals.
7 What is traditional? Seriously? I don't know what a
"traditional style manager" is. If that means the manager
that tells you your role then writes up a performance
review for you each quarter grading you on a numbered
scale... hell no! Managers in knowledge organizations
need to honestly get to know their employees. They need
to be a teammate. They need to not appear as a
"manager". A knowledge worker doesn't want to feel
herded. They want to feel that everyone on the team
(that includes the seasoned and trusted captain... the
"manager") is also contributing to the common goal.
8 By stepping back and allowing the knowledge workers
make some decisions, and feel that have a say in things.
Not branding a my way or the highway attitude, but still
maintaining a discipline and controlled environment.
9 I'm not sure what traditional style manager means. I'll
assume it is more of a "command and control" type
manager. They would need to change their style to listen,
seek to maximize the knowledge of their team as a whole
by encouraging communication, teamwork, and sharing
of duties, experiences, and information.
Question 10 asks the manager what critical characteristics their
organization might look for in a manager if they were to hire. Those results
are listed in Table 10.0. Note that manager 1 chose did not give a response
to the question. A good communicator was a popular answer by the
managers. Manager 2 noted that proven ability to deliver and be adaptive to
change as important. Similarly, manager 7 stated that being creative and
having the ability to continually align tasks to accomplish organization goals

45. Kielly-42
as being important characteristics. Manager 6 mentions the word ‘scrappy’
as a characteristic they look for. This basically means that the individual can
find ways to get things done with minimal direction, and is ok with top
leadership molding their ideas. Manager 7 makes a point of saying that the
manager should be a teacher and sharing their knowledge an important
trait, as well as the willingness to hire people even smarter than them. This
is a growing trend, especially with the high intellect of generation x and y as
learned from Amar (2002), and many of them entering the work force. Being
comfortable with this and using it for the better of the organization is
important.
Table 10.0 – If your organization were to hire or promote a
manager, what are the most critical characteristics they should look
for?
Manager Response
1 No response.
2 - Communication and relationship building skills - Ability
to be highly leveraged across teams - Capable of selling
business concepts - Highly flexible and adaptive to
change - Proven delivery success over a period of time
3 1) leadership skills 2) intellect 3) coach ability 4)
"product knowledge"
4 Communication.
5 Effective communicator, has to have respect in
organization, and has to be able to mange many tasks
6 We like to look for people who we describe as "scrappy."
They figure out how to get something done with a
minimum of direction. They are willing to have their ideas
molded and shaped by management to reach larger
business objectives.

46. Kielly-43
Table 10.0 – If your organization were to hire or promote a
manager, what are the most critical characteristics they should
look for? (continued)
Manager Response
7 Honest and trustworthy. Creative thinker. Has a desire to
teach and let others learn even more than they know.
Confident. Self-assured. Able to hire people smarter than
them. Caring. Understands the goals of the company and
is continually aligning tasks to accomplish those goals,
project by project.
8 - Ability to communicate - ability to motivate - critical
knowledge of the organization and grasp on
fundamentals
9 Experience in building bridges across an organization, in
developing the expertise of people around them, and
desire to continue to learn and develop themselves.
Discussion. The results of the survey showed an overall
understanding of knowledge organizations and knowledge management.
Words and phrases used in the responses were in line with the research
provided in the literature review around knowledge management and
traditional management. While each of the managers worked for
organizations that would be considered knowledge organizations according
to the term, some of the managers might not be aware of this. Likewise,
some of the managers might not be aware of the style of manager that they
are, be that a traditional or knowledge manager. While some did not know
the difference between the two, many of the answers to the questions they
provided showed an understanding, perhaps helping them realize the
difference.

47. Kielly-44
To prove or support the hypothesis that traditional managers may not
be equipped with the personnel and management skills to lead a knowledge
workforce, the results can be grouped into four categories. First, the
mangers understanding of knowledge organizations and knowledge
management must be observed. Second, are they aware of knowledge
management strategies? Third, do they see or perceive a difference in
management styles outside of a knowledge organization that could be
considered ‘traditional’? Fourth, based on differences between the two,
would a traditional manager be able to lead a knowledge workforce
effectively?
All managers had an understanding of knowledge organizations. Each
response had as its basis knowledge. Because of unique experiences some
managers created their own definition, with those definitions certainly
showing characteristics of knowledge organizations, noting such words as
intellectual property, collective intelligence, competitive advantage, and
strategy. There was not one manager who answered the question stating
they did not know what a knowledge organization was. Similarly, all
managers had an understanding of knowledge management. Their responses
seemed to provide insight into how knowledge management was put to
practice in their organizations. For instance, implementing processes to
ensure the use of data and statistics in aiding decision making, or creating

48. Kielly-45
organizational structures to maximize the value from organizational
knowledge.
An understanding of knowledge management strategies was clear with
all the managers. In many instances the strategy was simple, with clear
communication across various levels a key focus. Brown bag sessions,
weekly idea meetings, encouragement to develop new processes to meet
different goals, were all a by-product of basic communication. Proper reward
structures as identified in the research, was mentioned by the managers as
important in their strategies as well. With the correct strategies in place, it
was noted that employees feel in control and empowered. Such structures
allowed the organization to adapt and evolve in dynamic environments.
From a managerial standpoint, it was noted that the knowledge
manager must understand that the employees are in many instances much
smarter, and that being ok with that and using it to the organizations
advantage is a necessity. All the points mentioned validated the research on
knowledge management. It is important however to note that two managers
thought that in their organization knowledge management strategies could
be counterproductive. They felt this was important, pointing out that some
employees do not function well in such an open, collaborative environment,
with little clear direction. This could be a potential problem for the manager,
needing further research to identify solutions or suggestions to improve that
particular situation.

49. Kielly-46
Perceptions of management styles outside of a knowledge organization
were similar. The general feeling was that managers outside of a knowledge
organization might have strategies and operations in place that are not
conducive to a dynamic knowledge environment. Structure and defined ways
of doing things would be more evident. As a result, thinking processes and
people management was noted as being a major difference. An
understanding and teammate relation with employees might not be as
evident outside of the knowledge organization. Sole decision-making and a
‘no questions asked’ structure would take away the employee ability to
explore, discover, and learn. One manager noted that inside the knowledge
organization adapting to change is part of the culture. Outside the
knowledge organization the manager said that there is a tendency to cling to
the past ways of doing things, even in the face of evidence showing that way
might not work.
Based on the response of the managers, would the traditional manager
be equipped with the personnel and management skills to effectively lead a
knowledge organization? Overall, it seems that the managers felt that
certain key areas had to be understood by a traditional style manager. As a
group, the managers defined the traditional manager as one who wants
complete control, with little collaboration from the team in decision-making.
If the manager decided to continue being the sole decision maker and want
to maintain complete control over the knowledge worker, than that would

50. Kielly-47
not work well in a knowledge organization environment. The manager’s style
had to fall more in line with that of a teammate or guide, allowing
employees to have control in their areas, collaborate openly, and make
decisions.
On top of being a coach the managers felt that communication was a
key factor in knowledge management success. If the traditional manager did
not have the correct communication style then it would be difficult to be
effective. The manager must understand the employee in order to be
effective. In many cases, this means understanding that although in a
management position, the manager is not the smartest person in the room.
Knowing and understanding generational differences in employees and the
type of work environment that maximizes performance is an area where
traditional managers must be cognizant of in the knowledge organization.
Ultimately, a traditional manager could be effective in leading a knowledge
worker as long as they were aware of what they needed to change in their
current management style.
Further research areas. Due to the length and limitation of this
project further research would be useful. While many knowledge managers
participated in the survey it might be helpful to actual follow a manager for a
period of time and observe the management style. This might help verify
some of the data that was provided by the manager as well as the
information in the literature review. It could also provide more insight into

51. Kielly-48
why the strategies work, as an effective manager could be compared to one
that is not so effective.
Following the same idea of observation, a traditional manager
identified in a traditional organization could be followed. This could certainly
prove useful when comparing a traditional and knowledge manager. For
instance, a scenario could be given to both types of manager requiring them
to work towards a goal with their team. How each manager accomplishes
that goal could be recorded. Strategies, interactions, communications,
collaboration, etc. all could be observed.
Identifying a traditional manager who had moved to a knowledge
organization would also be an interesting research area. Observations could
be made as to the types of changes in management style that occurred, if
any. This would be an interesting scenario to follow and one that would
certainly provide insight for this particular paper. In such a scenario the
research and data provided in this paper might prove to be a useful resource
for the manager, bringing to light key areas where their current style might
conflict with the knowledge worker. Used as a guide, this paper might better
prepare the traditional manager for such a move.
Conclusion
Managing people requires the right mix of personnel and management
skills. In the knowledge organization this could not be understated. This
paper focused on knowledge management and knowledge organizations.

52. Kielly-49
Specifically, this paper focused on the types of managers that would be
successful in knowledge organizations, be they traditional managers or
knowledge managers. The hypothesis that this paper tried to support was
that some traditional managers might not be equipped with the personnel
and management skills to lead a knowledge workforce team. For the most
part, the data provided in the literature review and the primary research
surveys helped support the statement. It should be noted that some of the
managers that participated in the primary research did not quite understand
or know what a traditional manager represented, but the explanations they
had given around good management certainly supported the data around
knowledge management and the important traits and strategies needed to
be successful.
The literature review provided research around management style and
understanding the knowledge organization from the perspective of
traditional management and knowledge management. The data collected
from the surveys supported this data. It was clear that to be effective in
knowledge management, communication, trust, and open collaborative
strategies are essential. Sole decision-making by the leader and closed
communication have to be replaced with strategies that involve all
knowledge workers, while also giving them the control and power over
making decisions on their own. The manager has to basically take the roll of
a guide or mentor, not making the decisions for the knowledge worker,

53. Kielly-50
rather providing direction and insight. Removal of environment variables
that might get in the way of work is also important in knowledge
management. This might mean taking away or cutting back on meetings,
strict work schedules, and miscellaneous jobs that take away the focus of
the knowledge worker.
The manager must also learn to be flexible and adapt to change. With
strict policies and procedures in place in the work environment, it would be
difficult to move quickly with change and produce results in a timely
manner. In the knowledge organization this is very important. Being able to
change policies and procedures quickly to meet demands, and having faith in
knowledge workers to be champions of the process, is a key trait needed for
success in the knowledge organization.
Having faith in the knowledge worker means understanding the
knowledge worker and how important their role is to the success of a
knowledge organization. Managers must understand that knowledge workers
vary from generation to generation. By understanding the working styles
and expectations of different generations, managers will be able to create an
environment that promotes enjoyment and success.

54. Kielly-51
References
2009. Leveraging hr and knowledge management in a challenging economy.
HRMagazine 54 (6): 1-9
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=430
27182&site=ehost-live (accessed September 2010).
Alberghini, E., L. Cricelli., and M.Grimaldi. 2010. Implementing knowledge
management through IT opportunities: definition of a theoretical
model based on tools and processes classification. Proceedings of the
European Conference on Intellectual Capital 21-33
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=495
48997&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Amar, A.D. 2002. Managing Knowledge Workers. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group, Inc.
Bennet, D., and A. Bennet. 2001. The rise of the knowledge organization.
Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters 5-20
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=203
52978&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Biswas, S. 2009. Organizational culture & transformational leadership as
predictors of employee performance. The Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations 44 (4): 611-627
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=401
03517&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).

55. Kielly-52
Dawes, S.S., A.M. Cresswell., and T.A. Pardo., 2009. From “need to know”
to “need to share”: tangled problems, information boundaries, and the
building of public sector knowledge networks. Public Administration
Review 69 (3): 392-402
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=376
05749&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Fahey, L., and P. Laurence. 1998. The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge
management. California Management Review 40 (3): 265-276
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=738
868&site=ehost-live (accessed April 09, 2010).
Gargiulo, M., E. Gokhan., and C. Galunic. 2009. The two faces of control:
network closure and individual performance among knowledge
workers. Administrative Science Quarterly 54: 299-333
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=426
45262&site=ehost-live (accessed April 15, 2010).
Kim, W., and R. Mauborgne. 2003. Fair process: managing in the
knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review 81 (1): 127-136
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=879
6921&site=ehost-live (accessed April 09, 2010).
Krishnaveni, R., and C.S Senthil Raja. 2009. An empirical study on the
impact of KM life cycle activities on the KM benefits of IT
organizations. ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (3): 80-95

56. Kielly-53
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=424
07653&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Laise, D., P. Migliarese., and S. Verteramo. 2005. Knowledge organization
design: a diagnostic tool. Human System Management 24: 121-131
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=175
65937&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Moran, D. 2010. The challenges of managing knowledge workers.
Supervision 71 (5): 18-21
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=518
61818&site=ehost-live (accessed August 17, 2010).
Mutsuddi, I. and R. Mutsuddi. 2008. Retaining talents: the key to
knowledge organization. The Icfaian Journal of Management Research
6 (7): 73-84
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=329
55674&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Parris, M.A., M.H. Vickers., and L. Wilkes. 2008. Caught in the middle:
organizational impediments to middle managers’ work-life balance.
Employ Respons Rights 20:101-117
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=318
93348&site=ehost-live (accessed April 15, 2010).
Plescan, M., A. Borza., O. Bordean., and C. Mitra. 2010. Reinventing a
company the success story of IBM, revived and driven forward by its

57. Kielly-54
knowledge leader CEO. Proceedings of the European Conference on
Intellectual Capital 472-479
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=495
49047&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Pop, C-M., N.V. Cosmin., S.C. Mircea., and R. Lacramioara. 2009. The
“people” component of knowledge management: an important asset
for a leading romanian banking institution. Journal of Academy of
Business and Economics 9 (2): 156-165
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=454
62860&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).
Riege, A., and M. Zulpo. 2007. Knowledge transfer process cycle: between
factory floor and middle management. Australian Journal of
Management 32 (2): 293-314
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=277
28665&site=ehost-live (accessed April 15, 2010).
Soliman, F. and K. Spooner. 2000. Strategies for implementing knowledge
management: role of human resource management. Journal of
Knowledge Management 4 (4): 337-345 http://0-
search.ebscohost.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=lxh&AN=5206867&site=ehost-live (accessed May 28, 2010).