In my last blog post, I mentioned one strategy for persuading experts and other senior people to participate in knowledge management: include specific knowledge-sharing objectives in employees’ annual goals. Today I want to elaborate on this issue and mention some of the pros and cons of linking KM to the performance review process.
On one hand, we all know that measurement drives behavior. If you tell employees that a particular activity will be included on their scorecards, they are more likely to emphasize that activity in their work. Furthermore, targeted performance objectives help raise awareness of the knowledge management program and demonstrate that senior leadership is serious about supporting KM. If certain employees are hoping that knowledge management is a “flavor of the month” initiative that will fade away over time, a requirement to meet specific performance objectives may force them to change their tune.
One example of an organization that has successfully linked KM participation to performance objectives is Alcoa World Alumina. In 2004, Alcoa launched communities of practice to enable the transfer of technical best practices among refineries and other sites. To promote the communities and encourage people to get involved, Alcoa added best practice transfer goals to the performance objectives of targeted employee groups. Employees can meet these goals without joining communities, but community participation is usually the easiest way to fulfill the requirements. The organization also modified certain job descriptions to directly reference community membership and the need to transfer best practices across locations. All of this helped Alcoa increase the rate at which its refineries identify, implement, and share best practices.
However, it is important to balance knowledge-sharing performance objectives with training and communication about how KM benefits the organization. Otherwise, an employee might go through the motions (and so meet his or her performance objectives) without really engaging or obtaining value. A performance goal may nudge someone to join a community or respond to discussion board post, but unless these activities are understood in context and inherently rewarding, participation rates will drop off. Best-practice organizations also warn against introducing performance objectives too soon after launching a KM initiative, before employees have had a chance to experiment with the tools and approaches at their own pace.
And finally, some organizations argue against the establishment of KM performance objectives altogether. For example, the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland opts not to tie knowledge sharing to performance appraisals or compensation. This is because the organization wants employees to see KM as a fundamental part of their jobs, rather than an add-on goal.
As you can see, there’s no real consensus on the use of performance objectives to encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration. Some organizations have had great success with formal objectives, but others do not think they are effective in supporting meaninful long-term change. The efficacy of KM performance objectives usually comes down to organizational culture, so firms that are considering this strategy should analyze whether their employees are more likely to respond to formal requirements or informal encouragement.