Veracious Leadership

The purposes of this discourse are too clearly and concisely state my own personal philosophy of knowledge. In order to accomplish this I will first, focus on a discussion of the nature of knowledge within the context of the epistemology of Western Civilization. Next, I will examine in detail the purpose of knowledge and how it is used on an individual and a collective level. This discussion will be personalized and therefore will focus on how I use knowledge individually and collectively. I will review in detail the methodology individuals and organizations employ to collect knowledge and how those methodologies apply to my personal knowledge acquisition strategies. I will discuss the application of knowledge both individually and collectively and particularly, how I use knowledge within organizational management. Finally, I will conclude with an action plan focused on; how I intend to apply knowledge, individually and collectively in all my future endeavors. Throughout this discourse I will discuss the themes and principles that I found to be effective and of interest in my own learning experience.

What is the purpose of having a personal philosophy of knowledge? In today's world it is not sufficient to merely possess knowledge. As children of the future, we must know how to use, transfer, acquire, and apply knowledge in every facet of life with a goal of constantly improving the quality of life for ourselves, our loved ones, and all those we have the opportunity to influence. In this discussion I will examine knowledge from the perspective of 2500 years of epistemological discovery, and the functioning of the brain and the mind of man as described by Gazzaninga and Robert Lee Holtz. We will examine the objective reality (O-R) and contrast that with the subjective viewpoint (S-V). I will explore Nonaka’s teachings regarding the method of Knowledge Emergence in organizations and his use of concept of “Ba”. Finally, I will conclude with a discussion about learning organizations and the ideas of Peter Drucker and how these concepts can best be put in practice. All of this will become a foundation for an action plan that will apply this philosophy of knowledge and management and make a distinct difference in my life and in the lives of those around me.

 
The Nature of Knowledge

Two of the most famous Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle pursued epistemological questions about the nature of human knowledge; they attempted to identify the essential features, origins, and the extent, of the human psyche. Plato said; “knowledge was said by us to be true opinion; the true opinion is surely unerring, and the results from it are all noble and good” (Moser, 2003, p.57). The concept of knowledge as justified true belief has been the cornerstone of the epistemology for almost 2000 years. Plato insisted that knowledge is unchangeable and rejected knowledge of the senses. The early Greeks based their theories in reason and logic. Later history would label these theories as rationalism, or the epistemological theory that significant knowledge of the world can best be achieved by a priori means. In Aristotle's De Anima, he describes actual knowledge as “identical with its object: in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, but in the universe as a whole it is not prior even in time” (Moser, 2003, p.79). Aristotilian rationalism has its reliance on reason and has us believe that significant knowledge of the world exists in a priori.

The foundation laid by the Greeks had a substantial influence on the development of epistemology. As comfortable as I am with Plato's definition of knowledge as justified true belief I'm equally uncomfortable with the importance attributed to a priori knowledge by the mighty Greeks. It's not that I don't see the application and importance of a priori knowledge but rather I value more, the knowledge gained by the sensory experience of our environment.

Empiricism holds that the origin of all knowledge is through the experience of ones senses. Locke constructed an empiricist theory of knowledge; by what he calls, his "historical plain method" of showing how all the contents of the mind, which is a "blank slate" (tabula rasa) at birth, enter the mind through experience, either externally through the senses (ideas of sensation) or internally through experience of its own operations (ideas of reflection) (Locke. 1952, p. 96). Locke argued against innate ideas and principals partly on the grounds that many people are not aware of them, he states, “it is evident that all children and idiots have not the least apprehension or thought of them” (Mosier, 2003, p.129). Berkeley argued that ordinary objects could not have their existence independent of our perception of them. “If the objects in question are things we perceive and what we perceive are our ideas and ideas cannot exist without being perceived by some mind” (Moser, 2003, p.113).

The theories developed by the British Empiricists strike a harmonic chord with my understanding of knowledge and truth. Russell claims, “all knowledge which asserts existence is empirical; and that only a priori knowledge concerning existence is hypothetical, giving connections among things that exist or may exist but not giving actual existence” (Moser, 2003, p.217). My understanding and comprehension of the environment is based primarily on the information developed from my own interactions with that environment. I do not suggest that this worldview is applicable to everyone, only that it is applicable to me and how I develop knowledge and understand my environment.

What, then, is knowledge? Truncellito led us through an interesting discussion where some of our beliefs constitute knowledge, and others fall short of knowledge and called this objective-reality (O-R). Accordingly, objective-reality says; “we all live in the same world and we all form beliefs about that same world” (Truncellito, 2004, p. 1). Since knowledge is a matter of beliefs corresponding to reality, we need to determine the reality of the situation, and then compare our beliefs against the reality; but how is that possible, if we only know our beliefs; how do we define reality? In some cases defining reality may prove easy but other situations may be difficult prove. In the difficult cases we may want to say that there is no reality, in this case because there is no way to compare our perspective beliefs against any reality, and this Truncellito, calls the “subjective – viewpoint” (S-V) account of knowledge This subjective- viewpoint account continues, with the belief that since everyone has a unique perspective on things, everyone's reality is unique. This would indicate that makes no sense to talk about a single reality since none of us knows what reality is anyway and it is unique and different for each of us (Truncellito, 2004, p. 2).

Both these beliefs hold some truth, the objective-reality account says that we all live in the same world and we have a commonality of experience that we share. The subjective-view says that each of us is unique individuals and has unique perspectives that are independent of the perspectives of others. Can it be that both accounts are correct, and as human beings we have both; a unique self and a common being which is shared with the rest of the species? This duality has us hold status as both a public citizen and a private individual at the same time (Truncellito, 2004, p. 3).

To conclude our discussion on the nature of knowledge is to acknowledge the individual subjective-view and understand we are the holders of knowledge, but that knowledge has limited value until it can be shared with others through an objective reality.

Since our ability to know our world depends primarily on what we call knowledge, knowledge can be understood as an extension of instinct. The capacity for knowledge is deeply rooted in our biology and, in a special sense, is shared by all living things. This message rings clear in the writings of Michael Gazzaniga who talks about process and function of the brain (mind). Gazzaniga said, “My tale weaves its way through what we know about brain development and the simple fact of the evolutionary theory as it affects our understanding of the human mind and brain” (Gazzaniga, 1998, p.4). He said, the brain exists to make better decisions about how to enhance reproductive success (Gazzaniga, 1998, p.5).

 

Hotz said, “In a remarkable cycle of stimulus and response, the budding brain builds itself, using the electricity generated by sense of sight, smell, touch, hearing, and taste to activate and organize the neural cells that make up its tissue” (Hotz, 1996, p.2). The biological definition of the purpose of the brain is further enhanced with our unique ability to develop language. With language we can communicate both the dangerous and the pleasures of the world (Gazzaniga, 1998, p.8). Much more than a biological defense mechanism knowledge is a mankind's tool to ensure the health and development of the species.
The ability to learn and think, come with our brains (Gazzaniga, 1998, p. 59). The knowledge we acquire with these devices results from interactions with our culture, and the purpose is to ensure the continuation of the species.

The Process of Acquiring Knowledge

By way of background, we have already discussed several ways that an individual can acquire knowledge. The Rationalists would argue that knowledge is acquired through logic and reason. An example the may be a logical argument or a mathematical proof. The Empiricists would tell you that all knowledge is acquired through sensory experience. The scientific method is typically noted for its orderliness and control; In fact, we are taught that without these characteristics, experimental research may yield invalid results. These are all accepted methods for acquiring knowledge as an individual; however, what are some of the other opportunities for acquiring knowledge as an organization.

Nonaka talks about there being two kinds of knowledge; explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. “Explicit knowledge can be expressed in words in numbers and shared in the form of data, scientific formulaic, specifications, manuals, and the like. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to communicate or share with others” (Nonaka, 2001, p. 14). At the heart of Nonaka’s thesis is this diagram that explains the Knowledge Creation Process:



(Nonaka, 2001, p. 20).
The interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge creates new knowledge, a spiraling process between the two types of knowledge. There are four steps in the knowledge creation process -- the

 

SECI steps:
• Socialization
• Externalization
• Combination
• Internalization

Socialization implies sharing tacit knowledge among individuals, and empathizing with colleagues and the customers.

Externalization involves the expression of tacit knowledge and its translation into comprehensible forms that can be understood by others. An individual commits to a group and becomes one with the group.
Combination is the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex sets of explicit knowledge. Key issues are communication, diffusion and the systemization of knowledge.

Internalization is the conversion of newly created explicit knowledge into the organization's tacit knowledge. The individual has to identify the knowledge that is relevant within the organizational knowledge. (Nonaka, 2001, p. 16, 18).

The word "Ba" is a Japanese term which roughly translates into the English word "place" (Nonaka, 2001, p. 19). Ba is the common space serving as a platform for knowledge creation and knowledge is embedded in Ba. If knowledge becomes separated from Ba it becomes information. Information can exist in media or networks, knowledge cannot, it is intangible.

Nonaka believes “that knowledge is intangible, boundaryless, and dynamic and cannot be stocked, it has to be exploited where and when it is needed to create value” (Nonaka, 2001, p. 19). To exploit and create knowledge effectively and efficiently it is necessary to concentrate knowledge at a certain time and space; we call such space “Ba”. By creating and managing “Ba”, an organization can manage the knowledge creating process effectively (Nonaka, 2001, p. 19).

Martin Kinney said, “To be competitive a firm in the contemporary economy it is necessary to continually innovate. Industries and firms that formerly were comfortable protected, slowly evolving markets are being swept into accelerated change . . . of fundamental importance to today's firms is creating new knowledge or putting it differently in a day” (Nonaka, 2001, p. 93).

It is apparent from this discussion the process of acquiring knowledge for an individual is very different in the process of acquiring knowledge for an organization. At a personal level I believe that most of my knowledge comes from sensory perception and reason. I have learned overtime and through training how to find and use specific explicit knowledge. In accordance, with Nonaka's description above I have the ability to assimilate and internalize explicit knowledge that is in the form of books, periodicals, database, and in manuals. In addition to this, I have the ability to learn from others and to integrate their experiences with my own in a manner in which their experience are stored in my memory along with my own in order to make better future decisions.

The knowledge creation process for an organization seems situationally more complex and less certain than it does for the individual. This is an important understanding when it comes to applying knowledge in an organizational setting versus an individual.

We have discussed the purpose of knowledge in some detail at an individual level, now we will address the practical application of knowledge both individually and collectively. The Greeks talk about the accumulation of knowledge for knowledge sake and as a method methodology for practical living. The empiricists would say that the practical value of knowledge resides in the individual experience. We have examined the objective-reality and the subject-view. We know, according Gazzaniga, the brain uses knowledge in order to enhance the outcome of the reproductive process.

Practical knowledge, is the knowing how, and is the consummation, the fulfillment, of the knowledge quest. It affirms what is intrinsically worthwhile, human success, by manifesting it in action. This kind of dynamic up-hierarchy is in marked contrast to the classical Greek down-hierarchy, in which the intellect is on top and controls everything below it, without being empowered by any of it. It also follows that practical knowledge, knowing how to exercise a skill, is the primary kind of research outcome. At an individual level practical knowledge manifests itself in the know how of action, and in its application creates value. We have discussed the methodologies of acquiring knowledge on an individual basis but have not fully explored the application of practical knowledge in the collective.

Peter Drucker, in his article; The Coming of the New Organization, said that large businesses, 20 years in the future, will have fewer than half the level of management of its counterpart today and no more than a third of the managers (HBR, 1998, p.2). The typical business, Drucker says, “will be knowledge based, and an organization composed of specialists who direct indiscipline their own performance through organized feedback from colleagues customers and headquarters” (HBR, 1998, p.2). According to Drucker we are now entering the third period of change the shift from the command and control organization, the organization of departments and divisions, to the information based organization and the organization of knowledge specialists (HBR, 1998, p.18).

Garvin, in his HBR are article; Building a Learning Organization, defined a learning organization as; “and organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (HBR, 1998, p.51). The key to this definition from the perspective of the application of practical knowledge is an organization's ability to modify its behavior and reflect new knowledge. For Garvin, the skills of a learning organization manifest themselves; in systematic problem-solving, experimentation, learning from past experience, learning from others, and transferring knowledge (HBR, 1998, p.72). In other words knowledge has its practical value in the application in an organization through the utilization and implementation of these skills. Argyris, in his article, Teaching Smart People How to Learn, distinguish between single loop learning and double loop learning. He said that highly skilled professionals are frequently very good at single loop learning, they have acquired academic credentials, mastering specific disciplines, and have always been successful in their academic endeavors. However, these individuals “never learn how to learn from failure” (HBR, 1998, p.83), such that, when things go wrong they don't know how to react. For Argyris; the double loop learning is predicated on having both the attitude and desire to learn from experiential situations. This double loop learning in essence is the practical application of knowledge gained from experiential situations and applied to improve our purpose future performance.

As we have discussed, the application of practical knowledge is distinctly different between a knowing individual and a learning organization “as the individual has a single mind and the organization has many” (Truncellito, 2004, p.1). From my perspective, knowledge has great value, both at an individual level and within an organization; however, the value at an organizational level is significantly greater because it can influence multiple individuals with the same amount of effort. Stephen Covey discusses the impact of synergy in groups where the sum of the individuals knowledge is exponentially greater when shared (Covey, 1994, p. 223) Thus, the maximum practical application of knowledge is at the collective level and it is the combination of knowledge and application through leadership that maximizes the application of practical knowledge.

Personal Action Plan for the Acquisition and Application of Knowledge

This course has provided great insight as to how knowledge can be used individually and collectively to improve our quality-of-life. I believe that the maximum utility of knowledge is realized when it is shared among the largest audience. Knowledge, if not shared, has been minimal value.

At an individual level, I will focus greater daily awareness on my own sensory perceptions. This course provided an excellent exercise in the Personal Exploration of Knowledge assignment. This assignment provided me with a new appreciation for the broad array of sensory signals we're receiving at all times. As part of my action plan, I will begin tuning my sensory receptivity during my morning moment of meditation. I also, have a greater awareness of the role of importance of reason and logic in my daily decisions. I have obtained through this course a thorough understand the duality of the objective reality and the subjective viewpoint and can apply each where necessary and provide the greatest value.
At the collective level, I realize the importance of the learning organization and how as an individuals can contribute to create an environment that maximizes the application of practical knowledge. Through the application of leadership, knowledge can quickly assimilated and used to produce new and improved outcomes.

My personal action plan will be documented in a daily journal entry. This journal entry to be written at the end of the each day and the previous day's entry will review each morning. The journal entry will be broken its two parts; the first, focused on my individual acquisition of knowledge and list the most important individual lessons learned that day. The second journal entry will focus on the organization and will detail how I contributed to the practical application of knowledge within my association of organizations. The second entry will focus on my particular contributions and attempt to evaluate if they could have been improved had I taken a different course. These journal entries will be reviewed the following morning and new goals will be established for both acquiring and applying knowledge individually and within the organization. These knowledge entries will complement the leadership entries currently being maintained on a daily basis.

In summary this discourse has attempted to document the most important lessons learned over the past seven weeks in Knowledge in Theory and Practice (PHL716). We discussed in detail the nature of knowledge as applied by the early Rationalists and Empiricists. Additionally we reviewed the objective reality versus subjective viewpoint and determined they both are important and have value in different situations. We discussed the nature of knowledge on a personal basis and touched on the organizational implications. We discussed in some detail the functioning of the brain and the purpose for which it was intended. We reviewed the scientific method and the important role it plans and acquiring knowledge. We then began to transition from individual knowledge to organizational knowledge and reviews Nonaka’s concept of “Ba” as a methodology of organizationally acquiring knowledge. Finally we look at the practical application of knowledge on both an individual level and collectively, this examination ended with the development of a personal action plan for acquiring and applying knowledge that will be documents and further developed by the utilization of knowledge provided by this curriculum.

Conclusion

This study of knowledge has provided me a solid foundation and greatly improved my understanding of; not only what knowledge is, but also, how it can be leveraged as a tool to improve the quality-of-life of those around me. As I said in an earlier posting, I have a great appreciation for the manner in which this course was assembled, starting with 2500 years of epistemology, detailing the amazing potential of the human brain, transitioning to organizational learning, and finally ending with the application of practical knowledge in everyday life. This journey has been worth the effort, I appreciate and value every step, and look forward to utilizing these tools to maximize the impact of practical knowledge individually and collectively within the organizations of which I have membership. My journal will contain a special entry tonight.







References
Argyris, C. (1996, December). Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4) 390.

Covey, S. R. (1994). First Things First, New York: Simon & Shuster

Drucker, P. F. (1999, Winter). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41(2) 79-95.

Drucker, P. F. (2002, August). The discipline of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 20(8) 95-102.

Gazzaniga, M. S. (1998). The mind's past. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Harvard Business Review on knowledge management (1998). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hotz, R. L. (1996, October 13). The brain: A work in progress/Deciphering the Miracles of the Mind. Los Angeles Times.

Moser, P. K., & Vander Nat, A. (Eds.). (2002). Human knowledge: Classical and contemporary approaches (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (Eds.). (2001). Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.