From knowledge to action: how to bridge the gap between knowledge and behaviour in organisations

And there is a surprisingly wide gap between what we know and what we do.

It is precisely in this area that one of the most fascinating challenges of contemporary management lies: knowing is not the same as being able to do.

For a long time, we have viewed learning through a linear lens: I acquire knowledge, I understand it, and I will therefore be able to put it into practice. But human behaviour is less linear. We may understand the principles of effective delegation and yet continue to interfere with our colleagues’ decisions. We may be convinced of the importance of feedback yet put off the most difficult conversations. We may champion the value of collaboration yet, when under pressure, revert to defending the boundaries of our own role.

There is not necessarily any inconsistency. Rather, there is a gap between knowing, understanding and acting.

Knowledge concerns what we know. Understanding means attributing meaning to that knowledge and recognising its value. Taking action requires something more: transforming that meaning into a concrete choice, often precisely when doing so is most difficult.

When an organisation introduces a new strategy, a leadership model or a different managerial culture, it explains the reasons behind the change, sets out the objectives, and defines the values, skills and expected behaviours.

All of this is necessary. But there is a risk: that of confusing the dissemination of knowledge with the bringing about of change. Having communicated something does not mean that it has been understood. Being understood does not mean that support has been generated. And generating support does not necessarily mean that behaviour has been changed.

A manager may be fully convinced of the need to grant greater autonomy. The true test comes when they have to make a quick decision and a team member suggests a different approach to their own. It is at that moment that we discover whether knowledge has been put into practice. Organisations also teach what they do not explicitly state.

Then there is one factor that we tend to underestimate: nobody changes on their own.

Behaviour takes shape within systems of rules, relationships, incentives and expectations. We can encourage people to experiment, but if mistakes are penalised, they will learn not to take risks. We can talk about shared responsibility, but if every decision has to be passed up the hierarchy, we will continue to foster dependency. We can call for collaboration, but if we reward only the results of individual departments, organisational mechanisms will prevail over declarations of principle.

That is why context is not simply the backdrop to learning. It is part of the learning process itself.

Every organisation shapes its staff through what it says, but above all through what it permits, rewards and tolerates on a day-to-day basis.

Possessing a skill and being able to put it into practice when needed are not the same thing.

It is easy to be open to listening when others’ views coincide with our own. It is more difficult when someone challenges an important decision. It is easy to say we support empowering others; it is less easy to resist the temptation to take back control when uncertainty rises.

Competence is measured by the ability to choose a different course of action precisely when it would be easier to revert to the previous one. And this also requires us to question what has worked in the past. Control may have ensured quality, prudence may have reduced errors, and centralisation may have brought about speed.

The problem arises when the context changes and what has brought us this far is no longer enough to take us any further.

Perhaps, then, we should ask ourselves a different question when planning a change.

It’s not just a question of: ‘What do people need to know?’ But rather: ‘What needs to happen for them to actually behave differently?’

It means shifting the focus from the quantity of content shared to the quality of the conditions created. It involves providing opportunities for experimentation, highlighting new behaviours, and asking leadership to act in a way that is consistent with what the organisation stands for.

Above all, it means accepting that change does not happen the moment someone says, ‘I’ve got it’. Because there is always a gap to bridge between learning a new idea and incorporating it into the way we work.

Gaber had put it far more effectively: as long as it remains an idea, it is merely an abstraction. The real challenge for organisations is not to come up with more ideas. It is to finally manage to make them happen.

*Consultant at Newton Spa