Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?

The Authors

Jennifer Rowley, University of Wales, Bangor, UK

Abstract

Purpose – This article aims to define and explore the nature of wisdom, managerial wisdom, organisational wisdom and wisdom management.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on some of the diverse writings on wisdom, and explores the relevance of wisdom in the context of knowledge management.

Findings – Wisdom has received little attention in the information management and systems, knowledge management and management literature. This is surprising since in this knowledge-based economy the link between data, information and knowledge is seen as pivotal by practitioners, consultants and academics.

Originality/value – The article explores the nature of organisational wisdom and identifies a number of areas for further theory-making and empirical investigation.

Article Type:

Research paper

Keyword(s):

Knowledge management; Leadership; Learning; Learning organizations.

Journal:

Journal of Documentation

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2006

pp:

251-270

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

0022-0418

Any framework of knowledge that doesn't include wisdom requires us to operate blind (Allee, 1997).

Introduction

Rhetoric and policies associated with the knowledge based economy and the importance of knowledge to organisations abound. Organisations, consultants and academics are actively engaged in the pursuit of appropriate and effective approaches to knowledge management, arguing that knowledge, being one step higher than information, and two steps higher than data (Figure 1) is an important organisational and societal asset, but wisdom is rarely discussed. Very few of the numerous books on knowledge management even mention wisdom, and those that do contextualise it in relation to data, information and knowledge, but rarely develop the theme further. A more extensive search across web sites and electronic documents and in the journal literature of information management and systems, knowledge management, and management is not much more fruitful. Small (2004) agrees that little information on wisdom is to be found in the management literature. A few documents associate wisdom management with knowledge management, and suggest as the title of one paper does “Why stop at knowledge management” (Schrage, 1996) or “What lies beyond knowledge management?”(Matthews, 1998), but the gauntlet that was thrown down by the authors of these articles some years ago does not appear to have picked up. Consultants and technologists can always be relied upon to fill such a vacuum and to make good use of any terms with interesting and powerful associations. Arthur Andersen (Dignum and Heimansfeld, 1999) have trademarked the term Wisdom for one of their knowledge management tools, and Liu et al. (2003) discuss the concept of the Wisdom Web as a development of the semantic web.

There are few notable exceptions that break the deafening silence. Within the information science literature there is no direct comment on wisdom. In what might broadly be defined as the organisational and management literature, Bierly et al. (2000) explores a range of aspects of learning, knowledge and wisdom. Hammer (2002) offers some strategies for the getting and keeping of wisdom in the public service. Small (2004) has suggested that wisdom and managerial wisdom might have a place in management development programmes, and Miguel (2002) has promoted a new concept of knowledge that takes account of wisdom. Korac-Kakabadse et al. (2001) and others have discussed the association between leadership and wisdom. We shall return to these contributions later in this article.

Why is the discussion of wisdom relatively absent from the literatures associated with information management, knowledge management and management? Perhaps wisdom is seen as being too elusive a concept, with its true nature only being glimpsed. Jashapara (2004) suggests that wisdom (and truth) are terms that are even more elusive than knowledge. After all, developing a consensus about the nature of knowledge and critical knowledge based processes has spawned a range of theoretical perspectives and models, and a range of different approaches to the implementation of knowledge management initiatives (e.g. Jashapara, 2004; Kakabadse et al., 2003). The information management community, specifically seem to have some difficulty in accepting or engaging with knowledge management. Wilson (2002) asserts that knowledge management is no more than a new label for information management. Jashapara (2005) suggests that information science could have an important role in providing an integrative framework for knowledge management, and whilst he seeks to make such a contribution, acknowledges the limited contribution from information science research to date to the conceptual discourse of knowledge management. Engagement from the information management community is dominated by the vocational perspective (e.g. Rowley, 2003; Abell and Oxbrow, 2001; Davenport and Prusak, 1997), or even more parochially a preoccupation with the relevance of knowledge management for library and information science professionals (e.g. Cropley, 1998; Sinotte, 2004; Materska, 2004). This ambivalent and parochial attitude to knowledge management does not auger well for information science's confidence to engage in conceptual discourses around the even more ethereal concept of wisdom. This article lays down the gauntlet to this community.

Why should information and knowledge academics and professionals seek to explore and understand “wisdom”? Wisdom, as becomes more evident later in this article, is likely to have a significant impact on success and impact at individual, organisational and community levels. Second, our understanding of knowledge and knowledge management might be enhanced by its contextualisation not only relative to the “more basic” concepts of data and information, but also relative to the “more complex and abstract” nature of wisdom. One could argue that the principal driver in the emergence of knowledge management has been the failure of information management to deliver results in organisations (Jashapara, 2005). There is also some concern that knowledge management initiatives have not delivered on their promise (e.g. Bierly et al. 2000). There are still things that we need to understand about the way in which information and its management can influence, contribute to and interact with individuals, organisations and communities. It may be that the link between strategic choices and organisational information and knowledge is not sufficiently strong. Knowledge management may have focussed too strongly on maximising knowledge and knowledge access and sharing, with insufficient focus on what knowledge to select, apply and institutionalise in the organisation. Juxtaposing this concern with contributions that reflect on both the complexity of contemporary management and the complexity and hyper-turbulence of organisational environments and urge managers to stop and think, step back, and reflect on their experiences, might suggest that organisational theorists need to seek something beyond knowledge (Eisenhardt, 1989; Hambrick, 1989; Gosling and Mintzberg, 2004; Prusak and Davenport, 2003). Reflecting on the consequences of complexity and change for strategic leadership, Boal and Hooijberg (2001) identify managerial wisdom as a key component of strategic leadership, and Korac-Kakabadse et al. (2001) discuss transformational leadership in terms of wisdom. Finally, there are a number of occasions in which policy makers and managers make “unwise” decisions; Small (2004) gives some interesting examples of these. Most organisations would like to know how to avoid “unwise” decisions.

The purpose of this paper then, is to draw on some of the diverse writings on wisdom, and to explore the relevance of wisdom in the context of management and organisations. This discussion has relevance for both the theory and practice of information management and knowledge management. The intention is to try to explore what wisdom means in an organisational context, and to start to explore how wisdom can be cultivated and developed in organisations. The article starts with an exploration of the definition of wisdom, leading off with perspectives from philosophy and psychology, and then progressing to perspectives from the information management and systems, knowledge management and management literatures. The focus then switches to the notion of managerial wisdom and its relationship to leadership. The final section defines, and explores the nature of organisational wisdom, and wisdom management, respectively. The conclusion summarises the key themes in the article as a means of identifying a number of areas for further theory-making and empirical investigation in the areas of wisdom, managerial wisdom, organisational wisdom and wisdom management. At this early stage in the development of debate around the concept of wisdom, it is appropriate (and consistent with the notion of wisdom) to ask questions, and not to rush prematurely to solutions. This article seeks to open up the debate, and poses questions for further consideration.

Defining wisdom – perspectives from philosophy and psychology

Wisdom is a concept that has been discussed from ancient times, and that is firmly embedded in everyday language (Clyton and Birren, 1980; Holliday and Chandler, 1986). Commonsense notions of wisdom influence development of more sophisticated conceptualisations. The Oxford Quick Reference Dictionary and Thesaurus gives the following definition for wisdom, and suggests some related terms:

Wisdom – being wise; soundness of judgement. Related terms: astuteness, discernment, insight, intelligence, judgement, perspicacity, sagacity, sense, shrewdness, understanding (Hawker and Cowley, 1998, p. 477).

Holliday and Chandler's (1986) research shows that wisdom is perceived as exhibiting two categories of attributes:

Attributes of exceptional understanding (uses common sense; has learnt from experience; sees things within the large context).
Attributes of judgement and communication (aware; is source of good advice; understands life; thinks carefully before deciding; sees and considers all points of view).

Common sense definitions have also been shaped by the debates about the nature of wisdom in philosophy, and literature over the centuries. In classical times, wisdom was listed among the four principal virtues: justice, moderation or self-control, courage and wisdom (Small, 2004). Wisdom in this context was defined as the ability to make right use of knowledge, or the capacity to judge rightly in matters relating to life and conduct (Ostenfeld, 2003). Wisdom has also been a subject explored in literature and through history. For example in the Old Testament there are statements like: “wisdom is better than rubies” (Job, 8.11), and “wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: And with all thy getting get understanding” (Proverbs 4.7).

The notion of wisdom as being associated with knowledge, coupled with sound judgement is also present in other cultures. Eastern thought sees wisdom as involving establishing harmony with one's environment and leading a good life. Confucius, in The Analects, maintains that wisdom entails righteousness, and that the wise person studies and knows the Way (Tao), but also that knowledge must be combined with action. Western thought focuses on the practicality of wisdom. Aristotle, for example, in Nicomachean Ethics, spoke of practical wisdom as the ability to deliberate well about what is good and expedient regarding the conduct of a good life. Kant, in Critique of Practical Reason, described the higher state of true wisdom as being concerned with the practical end of the existence of man on earth. Tolstoy, in War and Peace, talks of wisdom not being found in knowledge, but through a consideration of the whole and an understanding of man's place in it. From later literature we have a quote from T.S. Eliot, which captures the relationship between information, knowledge and wisdom, and asks a very topical question, part of which has been adopted as the title of this article:

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

These few examples of the use of the concept wisdom demonstrate its importance to civilisations and communities, and start to identify some of the characteristics traditionally associated with wisdom:

The use of knowledge and information.
“Right judgement”.

This work has been continued in recent years by various researchers in the discipline of psychology. Although one of their primary preoccupations has been to define wisdom with the intention of developing a scale to measure its achievement, some of their excursions into the nature of wisdom are interesting. For example, Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde, cited in Sternberg (1990) argue that wisdom has three major dimensions of meaning:

A cognitive process or a way of knowing.
A virtue in which wisdom became the best guide for the supreme good, providing the most compelling guide to action.
A personal good, meaning it was an intrinsically rewarding experience that provided some of the highest enjoyment and happiness available.

Once again this definition echoes the link between wisdom and knowing or knowledge, the role of wisdom in “general good” and the practical or action-based nature of wisdom. It adds another aspect not discussed previously in this article: Wisdom as being an intrinsically rewarding experience, or in other words, that the exercise of wisdom rewards the wise – wisdom is not entirely altruistic.

Meacham, cited in Sternberg (1990) defined wisdom as an attitude towards beliefs, values, knowledge, information abilities and skills. He argued that wisdom was not in what was known but rather in the manner in which knowledge was held and how that knowledge was put to use. Birerren and Fisher, cited in Sternberg (1990) described wisdom as “an integrative aspect of human life”. Wisdom brought together experience, cognitive abilities and affect and allowed good decisions to be made at individual and societal level. This theme of good decision making is echoed by Kekes (1995) who argued that wisdom was the capacity to judge rightly what should be done in particular situations to make life better. Baltes and Kubzmann (2003) argued that wisdom was not primarily a cognitive phenomenon, but that it involved cognitive, emotional and motivational characteristics. They suggest that those who exhibit wisdom show a preference for the welfare of others, over their own welfare. They defined wisdom as:

Expert knowledge and judgement about important, difficult and uncertain questions associated with the meaning and conduct of life (Baltes and Kubzmann, 2003), p. 131).

Beck (1999) blends together various views of wisdom, and proposes that wisdom entails the awareness used by the self to relate successfully to the environment. In a managerial context such a definition can be applied easily to the practice of achieving and sustaining competitive advantage within institutional and marketplace arenas.

Both everyday concepts and the philosophical and religious literature suggest that the wise individual or the individual who exhibits wisdom:

Knows a lot.
Prefers to view problems from a broader long-term perspective.
Sees things in context.
Is flexible in adopting multiple perspectives of multiple stakeholders.
Recognises the uncertainty of life and the limits of their knowledge.
Is prepared to be tentative or flexible in the kinds of solutions that they offer (Baltes and Staudinger, 2000).

Defining wisdom – perspectives from the information management and systems, knowledge management and management literatures

Another way of seeking to define wisdom is to return to the “information” or DIKW hierarchy of Figure 1 (Zeleny, 1987; Ackoff, 1989). Zeleny explains the difference between data, information, knowledge and wisdom as data being associated with know nothing, information with know what, knowledge with know how, and wisdom with know why. Table I also shows some alternative definitions of data, information, knowledge and wisdom from Ackoff (1989), and Bierly et al. (2000). This table shows two important points. First, it is plain that different authors define these terms in slightly different ways. Closer examination of the knowledge management literature would show that this is especially the case for the definition of “knowledge”. Second, the definitions are inter-linked, so that any definition of wisdom that refers to or embraces knowledge depends on the operational definitions of knowledge. Since knowledge has proved an elusive concept (e.g. Jashapara, 2004; Kakabadse et al., 2003; Day, 2005), we should anticipate that the development of a definition of wisdom will not be straightforward. With this caveat in place, it is useful to move on to the list below, which draws together some exemplar definitions of wisdom from the knowledge management and associated literatures.

Wisdom is the highest level of abstraction, with vision, foresight, and the ability to see beyond the horizon (Awad and Ghaziri, 2004, p. 40).

Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world (Awad and Ghaziri, 2004, p. 41).

Wisdom is the ability to act critically or practically in a given situation. It is based on ethical judgement related to an individual's belief system (Jashapara, 2004, pp. 17-18).

Contemporary psychologists studying wisdom in adulthood view it as something that is universally valued as an adaptive human trait or ability that goes beyond conventional notions of intelligence to encompass the moral, social, and practical dimensions of solving life problems in expert fashion (Hammer, 2002, p. 12).

It is the “how” that makes wise individuals distinctive and sought out (Hammer, 2002, p. 12).

Wisdom is therefore, the process by which we also discern, or judge, between right and wrong, good and bad. I personally believe that computers do not have, and will never have the ability to possess wisdom. Wisdom is a uniquely human state, or as I see it, wisdom requires one to have a soul, for it resides as much in the heart as in the mind (Bellinger et al., 2004, p. 2).

We have long understood the difference between knowledge (and wisdom) in our daily lives; for example, we know that excessive alcohol produces some very unpleasant side effects, but how many of us show wisdom on New Year's Eve? (Matthews, 1998, p. 209).

Wisdom is … the personal philosophy (perspective on life), sense of balance and understanding of the complexities of inter-actions, within a landscape (Korac-Kakabadse et al., 1996).

Many of these echo the two aspects of wisdom in more general literatures on wisdom, specifically the practical and action-based nature of wisdom, and the importance of moral and social perspectives.

Drawing on this rich discussion and multiple perspectives on wisdom, we suggest that:

Wisdom is embedded in, or exhibited by action
Wisdom involves the sophisticated and sensitive use of knowledge
Wisdom involves judgement that accommodates multiple realities, and wider social and ethical considerations, and is exercised in decision-making and the implementation of decisions.

We therefore define wisdom as:

The capacity to put into action the most appropriate behaviour, taking into account what is known (knowledge) and what does the most good (ethical and social considerations).

If knowledge is “knowing how” to do something, wisdom is “knowing why, what and how” to do something. Wisdom also extends to the application of knowledge in action. A simplistic representation of the relationship between wisdom and knowledge is captured in the following expression: Wisdom = Knowledge + Ethics+ Action. This definition of wisdom is a succinct statement of earlier perspectives on wisdom. As such it is a description of how individuals are likely to use the term wisdom. It is not without its problems. For example, what is meant by the term appropriate? Who judges what constitutes appropriate behaviour? When in time relative to the behaviour do they make that judgment, before, after or long after? Here is a little example. After recent bombings in London, which made travel home difficult a cycle shop owner lent his stock to stranded travellers, on the under-taking that they would bring the cycles back the next day. This action has generated publicity for the shop, good relations with potential customers and a sharp increase in sales. Was the owner exercising wisdom, or just compassion, and where does knowledge come into all of this? Another concern may arise from the implicit assumption that knowledge does not encompass ethics. Hannabus (2001) suggests that this often is the perspective adopted in the current discussion of knowledge management, but that this is an impoverished view of knowledge, and that knowledge should be seen as having an ethical dimension.

The link between knowledge and wisdom and innovation and creativity is also worthy of attention. It is often implicitly assumed that more knowledge will lead to a higher level of innovation. Where does Wisdom fit? Matthews (1998) proposes a kennovation model (coupling knowledge and innovation) in which data and experience is the basis for information; information is the basis for knowledge; knowledge is the basis for wisdom, wisdom is the basis for creativity, and creativity is the basis for innovation. On the other hand they also suggest that there are some considerable tensions between knowledge and wisdom and that a person can be creative without being wise. This leads to an exploration of different kinds of creativity, and a suggestion that maybe knowledge; wisdom and creativity are linked in the realms of knowledge creation (rather than the creation of other artefacts or outcomes). A pivotal factor in further discussions of the relationship between creativity and wisdom may be attitude to risk. Creativity often involves actions with high levels of risk; such actions might not be deemed wise.

In summary there is general agreement that there is a relationship between knowledge and wisdom, but that relationship is complex. Being knowledgeable is not the same thing as being wise. A knowledgeable person has a complex explicit and tacit knowledge base on which to draw and has the capacity to understand complex situations. A wise person has, in addition the capacity to demonstrate sound judgement, which takes into account social, ethical, relationship, organisational and environmental issues. When they exercise wisdom they use this capacity to promote decision-making and action.

Managerial wisdom and leadership

Having explored the notion of wisdom from a variety of perspectives, this section moves on to consider one aspect of wisdom in organisations and management, managerial wisdom. There is a long tradition of wisdom being associated with leaders in religious and other community contexts. Thus is not surprising that authors in the management leadership literature have started to acknowledge that wisdom is a desirable and even essential characteristic of executive business leaders (e.g. Boal and Hooijberg, 2001; Mumford et al., 2000). They suggest that wisdom plays a role in effective strategic decision-making and in interpersonal processes crucial to effective leadership. Indeed, in discussing the role of leaders, Mumford et al. (2000) offer a description of the leader's role, which has considerable resonance with the definitions of wisdom offered earlier in this paper:

Leaders must not only exercise influence, they must decide when, where and how influence will be exercised to bring about the attainment of social goals (Mumford et al., 2000, p. 12).

This association between leadership and wisdom aligns with the tight coupling of wisdom, power and authority. The right to exercise wisdom or to take wise actions is only available to those with authority, or control, or in an acknowledged leadership role. On the other hand, the making of wise decisions tends to enhance the security of the leadership status, and thereby to enhance power. With more opportunities to exercise power, the opportunity to learn from those experiences is afforded, and in turn the capacity for exercising wisdom is enhanced. This coupling between leadership, power and wisdom, may have consequences for opportunities for individuals to develop wisdom.

The association between wisdom and leadership also service to highlight to social nature of wisdom. According to The Bible, Solomon exercised wisdom by making the outrageous proposition that the way to resolve the dispute over which of two women was the mother of the baby was to cut the baby in half. This provoked the real mother to give up her baby and resolved the dispute. Wisdom exercised by leaders is not always concerned with the leader themselves putting into action the most appropriate behaviour, but may be associated with provoking such behaviour into action by others. The leader's wisdom influences the group's and the organisation's behaviour, but this process does not make the other individuals, groups or the entire organisation wise; they depend upon the leader for their wisdom.

A number of authors have commented on the relationship between leadership and wisdom. Korac-Kakabadse et al. (2001) suggest that wisdom informs the visioning required of leaders, the use and content of dialogue, and the maintenance of the psychological contract between leaders and followers. Jacques and Clement (1991) see the perspective taking capacity of wisdom as enhancing strategic thinking capabilities of executives, and their capacity to anticipate reactions of others. Kilburg (2000) views productive interactions between managers and others as depending upon the self-restraint, and personal and interpersonal insight which wisdom provide. Hammer (2002) suggests that the following dimensions are all part of what wisdom means in the context of management or leadership: strategic thinking and reasoning, visioning and being able to take the long view, being able to effectively dialogue with others and engage them, and effective self-management. Malan and Kriger (1998) offer a definition of managerial wisdom that communicates some of the practical perspectives of the exercise of wisdom:

The ability to detect those fine nuances between what is right and what is not … the ability to capture the meaning of several often contradictory signals and stimuli, to interpret them in a holistic and integrative manner, to learn from them, and to act on them (Malan and Kriger, 1998, p. 242).

Boal and Hooijberg (2001) propose that the essence of strategic leadership is the creation and maintenance of absorptive capacity (the ability to learn), and adaptive capacity (the ability to change, coupled with managerial wisdom. They suggest (in line with Bartunek and Necochea, 2000) that managerial wisdom combines properties of discernment and Kairos time. Discernment involves the ability to perceive variations in the environment (Malan and Kriger, 1998), and an understanding of the social actors and their relationships. When referring to the understanding of social actors and their relationships, terms such as social intelligence and interpersonal intelligence are used (e.g. Zaccaro et al., 1991; McCauley, 2000). Kairos time (Bartunek and Necochea, 2000) involves the capacity to take the right action at a critical moment.

All of these contributions offer perspectives on the relationship between wisdom and leadership, and there is a considerable coincidence between the defining characteristics of transformational leaders and the defining characteristic of wisdom, or being wise. The message that wisdom, and therefore knowledge is a central element of leadership needs to be communicated more frequently and emphatically.

Not unrelated to the literature on leadership, is literature on strategic and managerial decision making. Indeed, Mumford et al. (2000) explore decision making as one aspect of leadership skills. They propose a model of leader problem solving that involves three elements, definition of the problem and identification of solutions; protect outcomes and reactions, and implementation. Each of these elements requires different knowledge bases as shown in Table II. This model suggests that leadership is a highly complex phenomenon involving multiple forms of cognition, including social, problem-focused and organisational cognition. Wisdom (and leadership) involves the formulation of a plan that works within the context of the organisation, and can be implemented within a social context. The appraisal and perspective-taking activities that are integral to this model of leadership are often discussed under the rubric of wisdom (Mumford et al., 2000). Various studied have identified a number of capacities that appear to be related to wisdom: self-objectivity, self-reflection, systems perception, awareness of solution fit, judgement under uncertain conditions, and systems commitment (e.g. Arlin, 1990; Sternberg, 1990).

Other work on wisdom and decision making has its roots in endeavours to design enhanced decision support systems, to support even more complex and ill-structured organisational decision environments (Courtney, 2001). Courtney (2001) suggests that the complexity of decision-making is increasing with a growing awareness of ethical issues and increasing globalisation, which together increases the number of factors and stakeholder perspectives that need to be considered in organisational decision-making. Typically problems become unbounded and interconnected. The real difficulty associated with this kind of problem is captured in the label “wicked problem”. This rhetoric acknowledges the need for a link between knowledge and ethics. Courtney (2001, p. 12) quotes Churchman (1971):

Nothing touches the true depths of the spirit so much as the act of knowing.

He goes on to suggest that wisdom is the result of integrating knowledge with moral concerns, and suggests:

Knowledge involves the ability to act intelligently and to learn. Wisdom guides knowledgeable actions on the basis of moral and ethical values Courtney (2001, p. 23).

This definition is the basis for proposal for inquiring organisations, discussed below.

This focus on strategy and its implied association with senior management might suggest that wisdom is the province of selected individuals. A key question, particularly in the context of more modern notions of charismatic, transformational and visionary leadership that have emerged in the context of the knowledge-based society (Boal and Hoojberg, 2001; Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2001), and network based organisational structures (Reich, 1991) is whether wisdom can be present at all levels in the organisation.

The school of thought concerned with strategy, leadership and management development has started to explore the notion of managerial wisdom. This is one key element of organisational wisdom, and as such these endeavours are a worthwhile contribution to developing an understanding of the nature of wisdom in organisations. As currently discussed, managerial wisdom is implicitly conceptualised, as wisdom of the individual manager, rather a wider definition that might be appropriate for the future which embraces the wisdom of management or managerial action at a group or organisational level.

Organisational wisdom and wisdom management

Wisdom management will be more important than knowledge management because wisdom trumps knowledge. A wise CEO will surely make better decisions than a merely knowledgeable one (Schrage, 1996, p. 37).

Success does not necessarily go to the firms that know the most, but to the firms that can make the best use of what they know and know what is strategically important to the firm and to the society at large (Bierly et al., 2000, p. 596).

If an organisation can develop the wisdom of its employees, and in particular its managers, it may be able to benefit from individuals who:

can provide useful advice about a variety of matters, perhaps framing a problem or issue so that others think about it more cooperatively or productivity;
acts prudently, clearly distinguishes between long-range gaols, and the processes used to attain them, and can be trusted to act in the best interests of the organisation, despite personal feelings;
can think in terms of the broader context that the organisation operates in;
deals with people well, readily earns their trust, and can develop and mentor staff;
values and taps their organisational experience, but is open to new ideas and perspectives, whether coming from colleagues or other stakeholders (Hammer, 2002, p. 13).

So what is organisational wisdom, and how can it be cultivated? Any definition of organisational wisdom must develop from definitions of individual wisdom as discussed variously above. In addition, it is useful to gather together any explicit definitions of organisational wisdom. A useful starting point, is offered by Bierly et al. (2000):

Wisdom relates to the ability to effectively choose and apply the appropriate knowledge in a given situation (p. 597).
We define wisdom as an action-oriented concept, geared to applying appropriate organisational knowledge during planning, decision making and implementation (or action) stages (p. 601).

They go on to argue that organisational wisdom involves both the collection, transference and integration of individual's wisdom and the use of institutional and social processes (e.g. structure, culture, routines) for storage. Thus, organisations can act wisely, even though it may not be possible to ascribe wisdom to any individual actor within the organisation. Furthermore, organisational wisdom is concerned with making decisions (judgement) intended to change the conduct of organisational actors. Thus, it is an action-oriented construct.

Whilst useful, these definitions offered by Bierly et al. (2000) vary a little in their emphasis. Developing from our earlier definition of individual wisdom we propose the following definition of organisational wisdom:

The capacity to put into action the most appropriate behaviour for an organisation, taking into account what is known and the legitimate concerns of its various stakeholders.

Organisational wisdom is the capacity for the organisation to act wisely. Building on our earlier discussion of individual wisdom, the organisation that acts wisely:

makes sophisticated and sensitive use of knowledge;
uses judgement that accommodates multiple realities, and weighs the interest of multiple stake holder's;
takes into account wider social and ethical considerations;
exercises wisdom in decision making and the implementation of decisions;
takes a long-term perspective.

Limas and Hansson (2004) suggest that wisdom is of greatest consequence in the context of organisations when it fills an important gap in what is offered by the organisation's (or society's) formal structure. Such gaps are most likely to exist in young entrepreneurial organisations or organisations experiencing turbulent environments and high levels of change; this is an apt description of the postmodern twenty-first century organisation.

How do organisations develop organisational wisdom? Can the discipline (or paradigm?) of wisdom management be developed to parallel the disciplines (or paradigms?) of information management and knowledge management? What is wisdom management, and what are the processes that can promote wisdom in an organisation? Indeed, is it possible to promote the expansion of wisdom, disseminate wisdom or promote wisdom creep, and cultivate a “wise” culture? Concepts in knowledge management and organisational learning can be used as a point of departure, but they have little to contribute beyond the knowledge element of wisdom. A few authors have ventured into this new territory, but there is much further to travel. As a starting point we propose a definition of wisdom management, and then review some of the themes and perspectives that might provide a platform for the further development of notions of wisdom management. Wisdom management is:

The influencing and directing of the processes that optimise the organisation's capacity for wisdom.

Learning and individual wisdom

How can individuals become wise? A sound point of departure for this question might be to re-visit the notions of individual learning, and in particular to draw on models associated with experiential learning, since our discussion of definitions of wisdom feature experience as a facilitating factor. Certainly experience can aid in understanding the broader context of issues, seeing how new knowledge can be added to existing knowledge, and assigning value to different types of knowledge. Kolb's learning cycle is a well-known model of how learning can be promoted through a cycle of experience, reflection, abstractions, and generalisation (Kolb, 1984). Bierly et al. (2000) argue that interactions with the environment, or experiences, lead to the ability to discern variability, which forms a basis for wisdom, based on an intuitive “sixth sense” which allows them to assess the relative salience of events, detect changing patterns, judge the important of developments, and to make decisions. However, if experience is pivotal to the development of wisdom, the range of experiences available to staff and managers in an organisation will influence (enhance or constrain) the scope of their wisdom, and their capacity for wisdom.

However, models of learning have limitations when it comes to examining the development of wisdom, because they privilege cognition and the development of the knowledge base and knowledge competences that support the knowledge side of wisdom development. They have little to contribute to our understanding of how the development of sound judgement can be promoted. This is arguably much more uncharted territory. Bierly et al. (2000) offer a starting point, when they suggest that the development of individual wisdom involves three paths, associated with experience, spirituality, and passion. By spirituality they are exploring the development of our moral and emotional self, and our understanding and appreciation of our positions in the universe, our soul, and the role of a God. They argue that spirituality informs wisdom through both self-reflection on experiences, and a formulation of deeper goals, and thereby prompts a strong sense of integrity, truth and reflection. They also argue that spirituality needs to be complimented by passion. Passion is the strength of belief to make things happen, and is essential to the action or implementation aspect of wisdom.

At this stage it would be inappropriate to regard Bierly et al. (2000)’s proposals suggesting the elements in processes associated with the development of individual wisdom as the final word, but they do make an important contribution in exploring the realm beyond cognitive and experiential learning (associated respectively with explicit and tacit knowledge), or in other words offer suggestions about the processes associated with the transition from a knowledgeable person to a wise person. This area has to be one of the themes that would repay extra attention, although it may be that since wisdom is context dependent, a model, which couples the development of individual and organisational wisdom, is the way forward.

Learning and organisational wisdom

Organisational learning, the notion that an organisation can learn, is an important concept, in discussing the social processes of knowledge management. Argyris and Schon (1978) model of organisational learning, with its single loop, and double loop learning is central. Single loop learning is concerned with responding to changes in the environment without changing the core set of organisational norms. Double loop learning, on the other hand, is concerned with responding to changes in the environment, by changing the core set of organisational norms or assumptions, and is tightly coupled with the organisation's ability to adapt its learning processes, or to control how it learns. In order to explore the learning processes associated with or linked to wisdom it seems reasonable that we may need to look to a higher level of learning. Some authors have proposed third order learning. Bateson (1972) and Berman (1981) propose that second order learning is learning about the context one learns within, whereas, third order learning is the learning of the contexts of those contexts. Berman also suggests that third order learning is an experience in which a person appreciates the arbitrary nature of their own paradigm, and moves to a more holistic worldview. McWhinney (1992) moves on the notion of third order learning suggesting that it occurs when one uses multiple realities to reframe one's own and other's experience in alternative frameworks. Bierly et al. (2000) propose a four level model of learning, with a level of learning associated with each of data, information, knowledge and wisdom. The learning processes associated with data is accumulating truths, that associated with information is giving form and functionality, that associated with knowledge is analysis and syntheses, and, finally, that associated with wisdom is concerned with discerning judgements and taking appropriate action. Bateson (1972) and Harman (1988) argue for a fourth or higher order of learning associated with global mind change in society. Such discussions of fourth order learning are beyond the scope of this article, except in the sense that they might provide a contextualisation for the consideration of the third order learning associated with the development of organisational wisdom.

Drawing on these various perspectives, the concept of triple loop learning is proposed. If single loop learning single loop learning is concerned with the capacity to adapt and change behaviour based on experience, and double loop learning is concerned with learning to learn, and the development of learning processes, then triple loop learning is associated with an even higher learning cycle. Triple loop learning can be defined as learning to learn to learn, or more explicitly understanding and engaging with the processes that change the learning processes. This involves understanding what affects the ways in which learning processes evolve and change in organisations, and being able to manage or influence those processes to create outcomes that accommodate multiple perspectives, and are organisationally and socially desirable.

The identification and labelling of an organisational learning process that promotes wisdom is only a first step. Discussion of organisational learning processes generally involves the development of models and theories as to how such learning processes can be cultivated. Bierly et al. (2000) suggest that individual wisdom is transformed into organisational wisdom through transformational leadership, organisational culture and structure, and knowledge transfer.

Other important contributions to the cultivation of wisdom have been made by authors who are seeking to identify the characteristics of wisdom communities, and inquiring organisations respectively. Wisdom communities have been defined as communities that:

Seek to move ahead with the quest for truth and goodness, seeking what is really real. They want knowledge for right action; they want wise decisions and responsible decision. They take knowing seriously and choices seriously (Merikangas, 1998, p. 70).

Courtney (2001) poses the concept of inquiring organisations and suggests that there are five different types of inquiring organizations, and suggests that one type, the Singerian organisation, might support a decision style that would be successful in complex and ambiguous environments. A Singerian organisation would have a teleological decision making style, which would be cooperative, and ethical. Its knowledge perspective would be interpretative-critical, valuing socialisation and externalisation, and its knowledge creation process would accommodate and welcome multiple perspectives and disagreement. The Singerian inquirer seeks the ability to choose the right means for ethical purposes for a broad spectrum of society, and views the world as a holistic system, with everything connected. Whilst there is no explicit assertion that such a model would generate wisdom, this concept would appear to have potential for informing views on wisdom management. More recent work applies some of these concepts in the knowledge systems context and develops the notion of Churchmanian knowledge management systems, purposeful and ethical information systems that create esoteric knowledge and provide a link between knowledge and action in an organisation (Richardson and Courtney, 2004).

Finally, we draw on and adapt the practical questions posed by Hammer (2002) to close our discussion of wisdom management with an agenda for questions that both practitioners and academies need to investigate further:

How do we retain the wisest employees longer?
To what extent are wise staff able to exercise their wisdom?
How do we identify emerging leaders who show evidence of being or becoming wise?
How do we transfer wisdom to emerging leaders before other wise staff leave or retire?
How do we get the organisational culture to value wisdom more?

Conclusions

Despite the long recognition of the importance of the notion and exercise of wisdom in civilisations, societies and communities, wisdom has not received as much attention in the information management and systems, knowledge management and management literature. This lack of attention is all the more surprising since in this knowledge-based economy the link between data, information and knowledge, is seen as pivotal by practitioners, consultants and academics. Discussion of the link between knowledge and wisdom has been left largely to other disciplines, such as psychology and a few adventurous management thinkers. An enhanced understanding of wisdom, and related concepts such as organisational wisdom, managerial wisdom, and wisdom management might provide a valuable contextualisation for, and lead to the enhancement of, knowledge management theory and practice. Further it might contribute a host of other organisational benefits that may support performance and success. Given the limited attention to understanding wisdom in the past, there is a heavy agenda ahead, the outcome of which is uncertain. The impact of good understanding of organisational wisdom, and effective wisdom management practices is an unknown.

After a review of diverse literatures, this article defines wisdom, organisational wisdom, and wisdom management, and poses some key questions for further work in this field, as listed below. We have commenced the discussion of some of these questions during this article, but there is much more work to be done. Many of these questions can be explored at the philosophical and epistemological level and at the empirical, more practice-focussed level. They range over the areas of wisdom, organisational wisdom, and wisdom management, but since these themes are frequently inter-connected, the list is deliberately not segmented. These questions are the conclusion for this article, and the beginning of the wider debate.

Some “wisdom” questions

What is wisdom?
Is wisdom always to be valued? Does wisdom always add value?
Can the definition of wisdom be developed to capture and crystallise the sense in which wisdom is a capacity, an attitude, an ability, or an action?
Knowledge has been conceived as a process by post-modernist scholars; is wisdom also a process?
Can wisdom be viewed as a systematic property of the organisational system to which it belongs?
What is the relationship between wisdom and creativity?
How can the concept of wisdom be translated into practical reality in organisations, taking into account different environmental and organisational contexts?
What is the link between wisdom and leadership, in the context of different leadership theories and models?
What is the link between decision making and wisdom, and how might this inform the role, design and boundaries of decision support systems
Can wisdom be developed?
Can wisdom be the privilege and currency of all leaders?
Is there such a thing as organisational wisdom, and if there is, can it be developed and sustained?
How can individual wisdom be converted into organisational wisdom?
What happens when there is a conflict between organisational and individual wisdom?
What are the processes whereby organisational wisdom can be developed?
Is it possible to transfer wisdom, given that such a transfer requires shared ethical and value frameworks?
Is individual wisdom, such as that of leaders transferable to new environments?
Can wisdom leak across organisational boundaries, and is this a good or a bad thing?
What is the role of narratives and communication practices in wisdom transfer and cultivation?
What happens when individuals or organisations exhibit a lack of wisdom, or a wisdom deficiency?
Are there different wisdom management strategies, and if so, is there an optimal strategy, and is it possible to identify it?
What role, if any, does technology have to play in organisational wisdom?
Is it possible to capture a body of knowledge or develop theoretical models that can be viewed as wisdom management, or is the notion and practice of wisdom too embedded in context and individuals?
How can a unified theory of wisdom and wisdom management be created from the contributions from researchers with different disciplines and different epistemological frameworks.
What is the relationship between information management, knowledge management and wisdom management? Previous work has focussed on differentiating one from another; perhaps a continuum along which information management evolves into knowledge management, and knowledge management evolves into wisdom management might be a more useful model.

Figure 1The DIKW hierarchy

Table ISome definitions of data, information, knowledge and wisdom

Table IIElements in leader problem solving

References

Abell, A., Oxbrow, N. (2001), Competing with Knowledge: The Information Professional in the Knowledge Management Age, Library Association Publishing, London, .