The Knowing-Doing Gap

Key Concepts

“The First Principle: If You Know by Doing, There Is No Gap between What You Know and What You Do”

“Competitive advantage comes from being able to do something others can’t do. Anyone can read a book or attend a seminar. The trick is in turning the knowledge acquired into organizational action.”

“Thus, at one level, the answer to the knowing-doing problem is deceptively simple: Embed more of the process of acquiring new knowledge in the actual doing of the task and less in formal training programs that are frequently ineffective. As one comprehensive study of the development of executives concluded, “One learns to be a leader by serving as a leader.” But this practice is rarely followed. It is revealing that, at least in the United States, the philosophy of “if you do it, then you will know” is applied most consistently in occupations in which people might die if the work is done badly. Although there is obviously classroom training for surgeons, the U.S. military, and some for airplane pilots, in all of these occupations, training quickly turns to learning by doing. In surgery, there is an old, nearly true saying describing how a resident learns a new procedure: “Hear one, see one, do one.” People in these occupations learn primarily by doing because, regardless of how well they can answer questions about how to do their craft, we only want them to use their knowledge on us when they have shown they can actually do the task.”

“When Talk Substitutes for Action”

“You’re Likely to Find Talk Substituting for Action When”

• “No follow-up is done to ensure that what was said is actually done

• “People forget that merely making a decision doesn’t change anything

• “Planning, meetings, and report writing become defined as “action” that is valuable in its own right, even if it has no effect on what people actually do

• “People believe that because they have said it and it is in the mission statement, it must be true and it must be happening in the firm

• “People are evaluated on how smart they sound rather than on what they do

• “Talking a lot is mistaken for doing a lot

• “Complex language, ideas, processes, and structures are thought to be better than simple ones

• “There is a belief that managers are people who talk, and others do

• “Internal status comes from talking a lot, interrupting, and being critical of others’ ideas”

“The leaders had forgotten an important truism in organizations: A decision, by itself, changes nothing.”

“An even more extreme form of substituting talk for action occurs when managers act as if talk, writing, and analysis are the main tasks that they, or anyone else in the firm, ever need to do. This problem seems to be particularly acute in large organizations, especially where many senior executives are financially oriented and out of touch with how work is done in their firms. Managers in such firms seem to spend much of their time preparing, delivering, and listening to flashy and well-rehearsed presentations that are designed to impress one another.”

“In Xerox, like the traditional manufacturing firm and BHP discussed earlier, talk, meetings, documents, decisions, and analytical processes came to substitute for action, rather than guiding and facilitating action.”

“Existing research on the effectiveness of formal planning efforts is clear: Planning is essentially unrelated to organizational performance.”

“Another reason that talk is so valued in organizations is that people who say more are more likely to be judged by others as influential, high status, and as leaders.”

Jargon hinders effective execution

“In addition to saying smart things and talking a lot, another way to impress others is by using complex language, complex ideas, complex sentence structure, and complex analysis in addressing organizational issues. Academics are infamous for trying to increase their status by using complex language to mask simple ideas.”

“Managers are often just as guilty as academics of using complex, incomprehensible jargon to express ideas that could be expressed in simple language. Unfortunately, using complex language and ambiguous terminology confuses people and inhibits action.”

“Few senior executives would describe their strategy as Dennis Bakke, the CEO of the enormously successful global independent electric power producer AES, did: ‘We try a bunch of stuff, we see what works, and we call that our strategy.’”

“Simple talk is valuable because it is more likely to lead to action. It is less possible to second guess or dispute simple, direct ideas. One may disagree with a simple idea or a simple philosophy, but that is transparent at the outset.”

“When Memory Is a Substitute for Thinking”

“ORGANIZATIONS THAT FAIL to implement performance knowledge often behave as if the present were a perfect imitation of the past. And, although executives in such organizations may deny it, the ways that people are hired, socialized, promoted, and rewarded means that when newcomers join the firm, they soon act like imitations of those who came before them. People in organizations that use memory as a substitute for thinking often do what has always been done without reflecting.”

“The pressure for consistency was a second psychological force that reinforced the ineffective practice. People who behave inconsistently are viewed by others as confused, indecisive, and even two-faced, so we all learn to attempt to appear consistent to others. People also behave in ways consistent with their past actions because it is more efficient. They don’t have to collect new information and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each course of action.”

“The taken-for-granted way of doing things permits the organizations to coordinate behavior and facilitate interdependent interaction through shared values, goals, and beliefs, rather than through formal, more bureaucratic mechanisms.”

“Precedent, when inappropriately applied, can interfere with both the process of learning and of applying knowledge to enhance organizational performance. Perhaps the most serious problem with precedent is that it is used automatically, almost without thought.”

“How Organizations Avoid Using Memory as a Substitute for Thinking”

Building a New Organization

“This pattern of creating physical, structural, and psychological barriers that make it difficult for people to act on the basis of history and difficult for outsiders to create pressure for following precedent, is a hallmark of new organizations that are not bound by history. Many of the organizations that have been best able to implement high-involvement or high-performance work arrangements similar to those used at Saturn are in green-field locations. As new startups away from other plants, they have an opportunity to innovate and surmount history, to implement their knowledge about how to build high-performance work arrangements without facing as many questions or constraints as older organizations. Implementing this knowledge in established organizations that are trapped by their history is much more difficult.”

Breaking from the Past in an Existing Organization

“The change at Celanese illustrates three principles we see in other organizations, such as Magma and Mitel, that have been able to get beyond history in their efforts to turn knowledge into action. First, there is a sharp interruption in what people are doing, thinking, and feeling. Something occurs to get their attention and to convey that reliance on precedent is doing harm. Second, something occurs that makes it difficult or impossible to go back to the old ways of doing things. This break has to happen, because otherwise the stress of a sharp interruption can cause people to cling even more tightly to what they have done in the past. Third, clear, feasible new ways of acting are developed, communicated, and implemented. People receive the information, emotional and tangible support, and training and other resources required to use the new and more effective practices.”

Building an Organization That Resists Mindless Action

“One policy that encourages developing and applying knowledge is radical decentralization.”

“Decentralization of decision making encourages people to learn because they know they will have the opportunity and, indeed, the responsibility to use their knowledge in their daily activities. The decentralization also facilitates the actual use of knowledge because it is the people on the front lines who get to make the decisions.”

“When Fear Prevents Acting on Knowledge”

“Fear also inhibits the ability to turn knowledge into action because people are so afraid of their bosses that they do everything they can to avoid being the one delivering bad news about the company, even if they are not to blame. Psychologists have identified something they call the MUM effect, which means that people try to distance themselves from bad news. People don’t want to deliver bad news to others because they fear they will be blamed by association, a worry that numerous psychological experiments demonstrate is well founded. Unless managers actively encourage the surfacing of bad news, the MUM effect means that the people around them will avoid bringing negative information to light, even if such information is essential for turning knowledge into action. The effect also means that people will avoid making suggestions for improvement if doing so first means implying that something is wrong.”

“The other problem is that this kind of fear creates a focus on the individual rather than the collective. You know the old story about the tiger chasing two people: The one who survives doesn’t have to be fast, just faster. Similarly, in organizations where there is fear of being blamed for short-term problems, people will focus on individual self-preservation rather than the collective good.”

“How to Drive Fear and Inaction Out of Organizations”

• “Praise, pay, and promote people who deliver bad news to their bosses.

• “Treat failure to act as the only true failure; punish inaction, not unsuccessful actions.

• “Encourage leaders to talk about their failures, especially what they have learned from them.

• “Encourage open communication.

• “Give people second (and third) chances.

• “Banish people—especially leaders—who humiliate others.

• “Learn from, and even celebrate, mistakes, particularly trying something new.

• “Don’t punish people for trying new things.”

“When Measurement Obstructs Good Judgment”

“You might think, given this common knowledge, that firms would routinely use measurement systems that cause their people to pay attention to issues that top managers say, and know, are important for performance given their specific business strategy. You might think that they would focus their measurements on elements of management practice, business strategy, and firm culture that truly matter for long-term performance. And, you might think that firms would recognize the commonsense wisdom expressed in a line from Otis Redding’s song “Sitting by the Dock of the Bay” on the need for fewer, focused measurements: “Can’t do what ten people tell me to do, so I guess I’ll remain the same.” Yet, firm after firm fails to implement these well-known and commonsense principles.”

“Measurement That Turns Knowledge into Action”

• “Based on the examples of both good and bad practices we have seen in this chapter, we can conclude that measurement practices that help organizations develop knowledge and turn that knowledge into action typically have the following properties:

• “The measurements are relatively global in their scope, focusing less on trying to assess individual performance, which is always difficult in interdependent systems, and more on focusing attention on factors critical to organizational success.

• “The measures are often focused more on processes and means to ends, and less on end-of-process or final outcomes. This focus results in measures that facilitate learning and provide data that can better guide action and decision making.

• “They are tied to and reflect the business model, culture, and philosophy of the firm. As a result, measurement practices vary from one firm to the other as the business imperatives, cultures, and philosophies vary. And, in measuring things such as adherence to values, recruitment and retention, and working cooperatively with others, the measures depart from conventional accounting-based indicators.

• “The measures result from a mindful, ongoing process of learning from experience and experimentation. There is not the sense that the system is ever completed. Rather, there is the view that the measurement system can always be improved and, because the business environment is likely to change, practices that are effective now may be ineffective in the future. Measures evolve to serve a fundamental core business and operating philosophy or strategy that is more constant.

• “The measurement process uses comparatively few metrics. Although these firms may collect a large amount of data, they emphasize and attend to a small set of measures that are believed to be especially crucial for supporting the company’s business model, philosophy, and culture. A focus on critical issues and processes is emphasized at the expense of comprehensiveness and complexity—things that dilute attention and that mix the important with the trivial.

• “At its best, measurement closes the loop, auditing and assessing what the organization is doing, thereby ensuring, as in the case of Intuit, that the firm does what it knows.”

“When Internal Competition Turns Friends into Enemies”

“Management practices that produce internal competition are so common that they seem unexceptional. Examples of such practices include (1) forced distributions of performance evaluations, so that only some fraction of people can earn the highest evaluation; (2) recognition awards given to individuals, such as employee of the month or year programs; (3) forced distributions of individual merit raise budgets, so what one person receives another cannot; (4) contests between departments or divisions, units, shifts, or even individuals within units for various monetary and nonmonetary prizes; and (5) published rankings of unit or individual performance.”

“Eight Guidelines for Action”

1. Why before How: Philosophy Is Important.

2. Knowing Comes from Doing and Teaching Others How.

3. Action Counts More Than Elegant Plans and Concepts.

4. There Is No Doing without Mistakes. What Is the Company’s Response?

5. Fear Fosters Knowing-Doing Gaps, So Drive Out Fear.

6. Beware of False Analogies: Fight the Competition, Not Each Other.

7. Measure What Matters and What Can Help Turn Knowledge into Action.

8. What Leaders Do, How They Spend Their Time and How They Allocate Resources, Matters.

Quotables

“Some organizations are consistently able to turn knowledge into action, and do so even as they grow and absorb new people and even other organizations. Other organizations, composed of intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working, nice people, fail to translate their knowledge about organizational performance into action.”

“A study of apparel manufacturing demonstrated that modular production, with an emphasis on team-based production, produced far superior economic performance along a number of dimensions compared with the traditional bundle system of manufacturing using individual piecework and limited training.9 Trade publications, industry associations, and the relevant unions had favored modular production since the early 1980s. Nonetheless, in 1992 about 80 percent of all garments were still sewn using the bundle method, and some plants that had adopted modular production abandoned it and returned to the bundle system.”

“It is interesting how uncommon common sense is in its implementation.”