Knowledge Management in Practice: From “Student-Style CEOs” to Sweet KM Lunches (Part 3)

In the previous two articles of this series, we explored unusual but very real stories of how knowledge management (KM) plays out in organizations across Iran—sometimes in humorous ways, sometimes painfully. From mischievous cats shutting down a gas refinery, to a repairman who solved a months-long crisis by lowering the pressure “half a bar,” these cases showed that KM is never just about documents or systems—it is about people, leadership, processes, and culture.

In this third installment, we take a closer look at four key accelerators of KM implementation: leadership, people, processes, and technology. These are not abstract categories; they are the dimensions that make or break KM in practice. Through real stories—from a CEO who behaved like an eager student, to knowledge ambassadors who ran KM events so well that consultants were “invited only for sweets and lunch”—we will see how these accelerators manifest themselves in daily organizational life.

Each case is followed by analysis to connect the story back to the KM cycle and to highlight lessons other organizations can learn.

Support from Senior Leaders: The “Student-Style CEO”

In KM frameworks worldwide—including ISO 30401:2018—leadership is emphasized as the first and most important enabler. Recently, I facilitated a three-hour KM workshop in a large oil and gas company. To my surprise, the CEO himself not only attended the entire session but participated with the enthusiasm of a student in the front row.

He took notes, asked probing questions, and even challenged his managers to think about how KM could be embedded in their daily operations. The contrast was striking: instead of the typical passive presence of an executive who shows up for a photo opportunity, this CEO embodied active sponsorship.

This example highlights that leadership support is not about speeches or formal statements—it is about visible behavior. When leaders engage deeply, they set the tone for the entire organization. Employees interpret such behavior as a green light: “If the CEO cares, then it matters.” Conversely, leaders who only say KM is important but do not act accordingly create cynicism. KM thrives only when leaders demonstrate belief through time, attention, and resources.

Words vs. Action: “Five Months, Still Waiting!”

Last year, we began a KM project in a government organization. At the kickoff meeting, the KM unit enthusiastically told us:

• KM was a top priority.
• Senior leaders had repeatedly emphasized its importance.
• It was even listed as a formal “strategic mandate.”

Encouraged by such promises, we left the meeting optimistic. But five months later, the first phase of the project had still not been completed. Every request for decisions or resources was delayed. The KM team kept assuring us: “Please be patient—our leaders keep saying KM is essential and they remind us in every meeting.”

Yet the reality was clear: the verbal support never translated into action.

This is a classic case of lip service vs. real commitment. Leadership support must be tangible—budget allocation, decisions made on time, staff assigned, and integration into performance evaluations. When KM remains at the level of rhetoric, progress stalls and frustration builds. The lesson: in KM, action speaks louder than strategy documents.

KM and Organizational Processes: “Right Says Left!”

In most KM reference models, process integration is a critical dimension. But in practice, many organizations misunderstand it.

During a training session at a large company, one manager admitted candidly:
“Our documented processes say one thing, but in reality, our employees do something completely different!”

In other words, the official procedures (the “right turn”) were on paper, while the actual work practices (the “left turn”) were embedded in employees’ tacit knowledge. This disconnect was so wide that new hires often ignored manuals and simply copied what colleagues did—whether or not it aligned with documented standards.

This gap underscores the missing link of knowledge application. Capturing lessons learned is not enough; organizations must ensure that knowledge flows back into processes, updates documents, and informs training. Otherwise, procedures become outdated archives, while real knowledge remains invisible and inconsistent. Effective KM means that “what we say we do” (processes) and “what we actually do” (practice) are aligned through continuous updating.

Empowered Knowledge Ambassadors: “Just Invited for Sweets and Lunch!”

One of the slogans in our consulting work is: “KM implementation through mentoring.” The idea is to empower internal teams so they can sustain KM themselves, rather than relying forever on external consultants.

In a major bank, after several years of capacity-building, we saw this philosophy come to life. Two advanced KM techniques were planned:

• Video-based knowledge capture (employees recording and sharing their experiences), and
• Knowledge cafés (informal group discussions around specific challenges).

But here’s the twist: instead of us consultants leading the initiatives, the bank’s own knowledge ambassadors organized and facilitated everything. Our role? To attend as guests—enjoy the discussions, and yes, share some sweets and lunch!

This story reflects the highest level of KM maturity: ownership by the organization itself. Consultants should aim to “teach how to fish,” not “keep fishing” on behalf of clients. When ambassadors are trained and empowered, KM becomes embedded in the culture, not dependent on outsiders. For us, being invited “only for sweets” was a sweet victory indeed.

Tailored Consulting: “Stitching the Suit to Fit the Organization”

Some consultants still use a “one-size-fits-all” approach: they arrive with a pre-packaged KM methodology, roll it out from A to Z, and expect every organization to follow the same script. This is like forcing every client to wear the same ready-made suit, regardless of size or context.

Our philosophy is different: while some initial structure is necessary, more than half of KM interventions should be designed during the project, based on real needs observed in the field.

For instance, in a leading bank, when asked for a detailed KM framework, we deliberately resisted giving a fixed blueprint. Instead, we outlined only broad phases and emphasized that solutions would be co-designed during implementation.

One year later, the tailored approach delivered measurable results. In the closing review, a senior executive praised the project, specifically noting how the adaptive consulting style had produced outcomes that a rigid methodology never could.

This case highlights the importance of contextualization. KM is not about “copy-paste” models—it is about customizing interventions to the culture, structure, and maturity level of each organization. Tailored suits always fit better than mass-produced ones.

Leadership as Demanding Stakeholders: “The Spirit of Accountability”

In KM projects, we often emphasize that senior leaders must not only support initiatives but also act as demanding stakeholders. This means asking tough questions, requesting reports, and monitoring progress actively.

In a gas company, I was impressed to discover that before even starting our project, senior executives had been holding regular KM committee meetings for three years. They treated KM as a top priority and expected concrete outcomes.

During the kickoff, leaders insisted that the KM team present, within clear deadlines, the techniques and tools they intended to implement. They framed KM not as an optional experiment, but as a deliverable that required accountability.

This spirit of leadership accountability is rare but powerful. When senior managers consistently demand evidence of KM progress, the initiative gains seriousness. Employees realize it is not just “another soft project” but a strategic requirement. Accountability transforms KM from a slogan into a managed discipline.

Conclusion

From CEOs behaving like eager students, to processes that say “right” while practice goes “left,” to empowered ambassadors running knowledge cafés, these stories show the multifaceted reality of KM. The four accelerators—leadership, people, processes, and technology—are not theoretical pillars. They are lived realities that determine whether KM succeeds or stalls.

The lessons are clear:

• Leadership must go beyond words to visible commitment and accountability.
• People must be empowered as ambassadors, not passive participants.
• Processes must reflect real practices, updated continuously by lessons learned.
• Consulting and technology must be tailored, like a custom suit, to fit the organization.

Ultimately, KM is not about installing a system or producing endless reports. It is about creating an environment where knowledge flows seamlessly—across hierarchy, across processes, and across time. And sometimes, when done right, it is sweet enough that consultants are invited only “for sweets and lunch.”