Bridge #1: Understanding the “why” of anything is always more important than the “how”.

Knowing what to do is far less important than knowing why something should be done. In other words, before getting down to details, spend more time understanding the philosophy of why that task is important.

Smart organizations always lay a foundation of their basic principles with employees before they start training on specific techniques or practices. In doing so, they create the conditions within which a learning organization can flourish.

For example, many organizations teach about:

§         Their general business model – how the business generates a revenue stream and profits.

§         Their theories on operational performance – how the business is organized, and how to obtain help when needed.

§         The core values which guide the firm.

Armed with that philosophical base, the organization can then move on to develop specific skill sets which are relevant and important to the execution of that philosophy. Since everyone understands the underlying philosophy, they then become empowered to try new things and to blaze new paths. In other words, precedent does not substitute for thinking or the trying of original ideas. The practical benefit of the philosophy-first approach is specific practices won’t become enshrined as sacred and unvarying. The basic philosophy will be constant, but new practices will be welcomed and encouraged. In that way, these organizations will be able to adapt to new and previously unexploited business opportunities.
 

Bridge # 2: Avoid the “smart talk” trap – actions count more than plans, presentations or history.

When talk becomes a substitute for action, problems develop and the knowing-doing gap widens. Sounding smart will never be an effective substitute for doing something smart.

When Tom Peters and Robert Waterman studied the performance records of great companies, they ended up articulating their basic approach to business planning as being:

“Ready, fire, aim.” In other words, these companies succeeded even though not all the facts were yet available, and they were perfectly willing to go back and refine things at a later stage if necessary.

Acting without a vast amount of planning has two advantages:

1. It creates genuine opportunities for the organization to learn by doing.

2. It shows that action with best intent is valued and favored over endless analysis.
 

Bridge #3: Knowing comes best from doing – and by teaching others how to do the same.

Actual firsthand experience is the best possible teacher. People who learn by doing rather than by hearing or reading have a deeper level of knowledge, understand the subject in greater detail and have little or no gap between what they know and what they do.

It really comes down to the issue of effective knowledge management. Knowledge exists in two forms:

§         Cognitive knowledge (from which everyday working knowledge is derived) is the essential facts and figures which people use in their day-to-day jobs. This type of knowledge can be passed on by formal and informal systems. It can also be captured, stored and transferred using communications technology – computers, CD-ROMs, etc.

§         Tacit knowledge can’t easily be described, stored or passed on to other people, yet it is also essential to performing well. Tacit knowledge can only be built up by actual experience, by learning what does and doesn’t work. Tacit knowledge includes the skills that can only be gained by having an inexperienced person work alongside an experienced person who coaches and corrects.  

Bridge #4: Mistakes are an inevitable part of knowing. There must be a high tolerance for new mistakes.

To build a company culture which lauds and encourages action, things will frequently go wrong. How these mistakes are treated will have a major impact on whether the knowing-doing gap becomes narrower or wider over time.

Business organizations that encourage people to actively try new things have to reinforce that with an exceptionally high tolerance for well intentioned failures. In other words, if failure is treated harshly within the organization, nobody will be prepared to try anything new. But at the same time, there also needs to be a little balance, so people are actively encouraged to act responsibly and reasonably.
 

Bridge #5: Fear widens the gap between knowing and doing. Therefore, eliminate fear and you close the gap.

Attempting to manage an organization through fear is always counter productive. You might be able to generate some short-term results, but over the longer-term, an environment of distrust is bad business.

Fear-based management means individuals within the organization are afraid to do things or even voice their true opinions because they could end up losing the jobs. Therefore, they do whatever they think their boss wants, rather than whatever their experience and know-how suggests should be done.

Clearly, fear widens the gap between knowing and doing.
 

Bridge #6: Internal competition is destructive. Get everyone fighting competitors, not each other.

Turning knowledge into action is always easier in an organization where everyone works together rather than competes against each other. Instead of focusing on internal contests, get everyone united in beating the marketplace competitors.

There is a general perception that since capitalism triumphed over communism in the marketplace, competition within an organization is a superior way to manage. However, while internal competition may, at first glance, be an effective way to manage an organization, it has too many potential problems attached. Therefore, it should be avoided.  
 

Bridge #7: Measure only what matters – whatever translates knowledge into action.