Classical vs Relational KM From transactions and content to interaction and meaning

---

Knowledge Management has largely been built on the idea that knowledge can be captured and shared as content. This leads to heavy investment in systems and processes, yet understanding and action often fall short. A relational view shifts attention to interaction, where knowledge is made through conversation and applied in context.

---

Introduction

Knowledge Management has long been shaped by a particular way of thinking about knowledge. It is often treated as something we can capture, store, and move around. That view is widespread, and in many contexts it appears to work. But it is not the only way to understand what is going on.

What is less often recognized is that this traditional view is not just classical, it is also transactional. It is built on the idea that knowledge can be packaged and exchanged. That assumption runs quietly through much of KM practice.

Alongside this, a different perspective has been emerging grounded in the idea of relationality. One that sees knowledge not as something we manage, but as something that happens in interaction. This is the shift towards relational KM.

Classical KM as a transactional view

What I call classical KM is based on an object view of knowledge, and in practice, a transactional one.

Knowledge is treated as if it were a thing. Something we can create, capture, store, and transfer. In practice, this often means working with documents, databases, and repositories. What gets managed are artifacts, things that can be written down, structured, and shared.

In this view, knowledge and information are often conflated. What we call knowledge sharing is, in many cases, the movement of information from one place to another.

The emphasis falls on transactions. Uploading a document, searching a repository, downloading a template, and completing a lessons learned form. Each of these is treated as a meaningful unit of knowledge exchange.

Systems sit at the centre. Platforms such as SharePoint become the backbone. The underlying assumption is that if we improve the system, we improve how information is made available and used.

This way of thinking is familiar. It underpins much of what organizations have invested in over the years. It is not without value. But it rests on the assumption that knowledge behaves like an object, an assumption that is rarely examined.

The limits of the object and transactional view

There is no shortage of information in organizations. Strategies are documented. Processes are described. Lessons learned are captured. Yet behaviour does not reliably follow.

If knowledge really behaved like an object that could be transferred through transactions, then providing the right information should be enough. In practice, it is not.

The transaction happens, the document is shared, accessed, perhaps even read. But understanding does not necessarily follow.

What is missing is not more content. It is how people engage with that content, how they interpret it, question it, and make sense of it together in context.

The assumption that meaning travels with content proves weak, especially in complex situations.

Relational KM

Relational KM starts from a different place.

Knowledge is not treated as something we possess or store. It emerges in what we do and how we interact. It is enacted in practice, in the moment, in context.

From this perspective, the idea of knowledge flow looks very different. At ground level, it is people engaging with one another, asking questions, challenging assumptions, and making sense of situations together.

Knowledge does not move through conversation. It is generated and regenerated within it.

Information still matters, but it plays a different role. It provides prompts, inputs, and constraints. It does not carry knowledge in itself.

From managing transactions to shaping interaction

Once we see knowledge as relational, the focus of KM shifts.

It becomes less about managing artifacts or facilitating transactions and more about shaping the conditions in which people interact. The quality of conversation, the ability to explore different perspectives, and the space to think together become central.

This is where Conversational Leadership comes into play. Conversational Leadership is not about facilitating occasional discussions. It is about taking responsibility for creating the conditions for meaningful conversations to happen as part of everyday work.

The work is not to push knowledge around the organization. It is to convene conversations that might not otherwise happen, and to create the conditions in which understanding can emerge and develop in practice.

Implications for practice

This is not about abandoning everything associated with classical or transactional KM. Documents, systems, and processes still have a role. But they are no longer the centre of gravity. They support the work. They do not constitute it.

Transactional approaches can be useful in stable, repeatable contexts where consistency and reuse matter. But as situations become more complex, their limits become more visible.

In practice, this means shifting attention towards conversation, connection, and shared sense-making. It means seeing Conversational Leadership not as an add-on, but as a core practice of knowledge work.

The real work happens in interaction, in how people engage with one another and with the situations they face.