This is a very interesting conceptual discussion for me as it mirrors a near constant topic for discourse in my primary domain; knowledge management. Since I had been engaged in the communities of information management, organizational learning, quality/process engineering, and what was originally-termed; “intellectual capital management” prior to finding its eventual moniker: knowledge management, I can report to you that these discussions never die, rarely find nuance - talk of resolution and cycle endlessly back on themselves.
However, in my interpretation, there is a difference here.
The difference isn’t with the evil word “management,” as that concept descriptor is equally corrupt in both instances as neither change nor knowledge are to be “managed.” It makes no sense and it’s not truly attainable for either domain.
The difference is that although the concept of “change” is too much of an umbrella term, it’s understood at a core conceptual and shared level. Knowledge is not. In fact, so called KM practitioners who have been touting the notion and engaed in projects for over twenty years have absolutely no clue. And not surprisingly 90+% of all KM project fail. It’s a mere matter of serendipity when they succeed. I don’t get that same sense with so many of the strategic initiatives that collectively find themselves with the umbrella name of change management, although admittedly lots of them fail too. I just think when those failures occur, the implementers simply have issues with execution.
So those change management professionals who have been taking on this name issue… just be glad you haven’t been in the 18-year cycle of constant noise I have been participating in!
BTW, those of us who have formed around smaller subset activities and more accurately dealt with the management component by using the terms; “knowledge practices” and “knowledge ecology” (thanks Jack), have fared somewhat better.
(posted in - LinkedIn Group - Organizational Change Practitioners)