How Knowledge Helps

Group conviction based on corporate data sets up expectations about what plans and goals are needed or desirable. Such data also plays a major part in getting agreement to objectives. Given any plans, there are expectations as to what the corporate data should be showing.

We name the CL5_O ↔ CL4_B channel: EXPECTATION

Valid local knowledge contributes to planning by providing specific qualitative details. It describes practical aspects of processes and enlivens or explains conclusions drawn from corporate statistics. Goals also stretch the scope of individual interest and increase ways of appraising work issues.

We name the CL5_I ↔ CL4_B channel: EXTENSION

Power-based disputes are often irrational because they are bids for preferential treatment by a committed group. Responding with power alone (e.g. dismissing the whole group) is rarely satisfactory or feasible. However, corporate facts provide a tool that management can use with genuine conviction. The result is a confrontation. The group in dispute also draws on their own facts and uses other corporate data to bolster their argument. Resolutions often require both sides to alter how they perform in certain ways, and corporate information systems are used to monitor progress and to confront again if required.

We name the CL5_O ↔ CL3_I channel: CONFRONTATION

Corporate data-CL5_O is not immediately relevant for resolving disputes between parts of the organization. All data must first be interpreted in terms of organizational objectives, binding on the disputing parties. So there is no direct CL5_O ↔ CL3_O channel.

Local knowledge-CL5_I can stimulate the resolution of inter-divisional issues because of the light that is shone on particular examples of the dispute. At the same time, any resolution of management issues stimulates re-appraisal of situations, by individuals seeking to learn how things have changed.

We name the CL5_I ↔ CL3_O channel: STIMULATION

Individual certainty-CL5_Iabout a local work situation is not relevant to resolution of power-based group-controlled disputes. So there is no direct CL5_I ↔ CL3_Ichannel.

CL5 – CL2:  Accountability-CL2 is based on assigning responsibility for a delimited area of work. Facts and convictions do not engage directly with that. Facts may be used to assist with appraisal of performance, but they cannot be applied cold and unmediated. Facts must first be handled in terms of the CL4-goals being pursued and any CL3-resolutions reached.

CL5 – CL1:  Taking action-CL1 does not link directly with knowledge at CL5. Nor does certainty about any facts directly affect what is done. There must be mediation through higher centres, primarily values-goals at CL4 and accountability at CL2.