Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction

knowledge management inorganizations :':-1.'ll:i

'-a; ,

;{

DONALD HISLOP

OXFORD IJNIVERSITY

PRBSS

-1 i I

i

,!

j I

OXT'ORD T'NIVERSITY

PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6Dp OxJord University PresS'isa department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's obiective of excellence in research,scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melboume Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Slo Paulo Shanghai Thipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registeredtrade mark of Oxford University press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University PressInc., New York @ Donald Hislop, 2005 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Databaseright Oxford University Press(maker) F i r s tp u b l i s h e d2 0 0 5 All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outsjde the scope of the above shbuld be sent to the Rights Department, : Oxford University Press,at the addressabove You rriust not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any aequirer British Library Cataloguing in fublication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available lsBN 0-19-926206-3 135791O8642 T)?eset by Newgen Imaging Systems(p) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire

RIGAS EKONT}S{TKAS AUGSTSKOLA

6l\- )-oc5

I

CONTENTS

- s: of figures Listof tables Abbreviations

XI xtl xiv

1 Why the current interestin knowledgemanagement?

1

Introduction Knowledge societyandpost-industrial society A critiqueof the knowledge society Themesandperspectives

1 3 6 8

PART1 Epistemologies of knowledge

IJ

The objectivistperspectiveon knowledge

tc

Whatis knowledge? perspectives Objectivist on knowledge Typologies of knowledge perspective An objectivist on the sharing andmanagement of knowledge Conclusion The practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge

.

Whatis knowledge? perspectives Practice-based on knowledge lmplications for the natureof theorganizational knowledge base perspective A practice-based on the management andsharing of knowledge Conclusion

15 to 18 21 25

27 27 28 35 36 39

PART2 Social andcuttural issues related to managing andsharing knowledge 4 'Why should I share my knowledge?' what motivates people to shareknowledge Introduction The'firstgeneration' knowledge management literature: the neglectof socio-cultural factors People's motivation andwillingness to shareknowledge peopleto share/hoard Whatmotivates theirknowledge? Conclusion

AA

43 44 49 AA

CO,NTENTS

8

C o m m u n i t i e so f p r a c t i c e

57

\ntroductron

Defining andcharacterizing communities of practice processes Communities of practice andintra-community knowledge Managing communities of practice processes Disadvantages of communities of practice for knowledge Conclusion

57 5B 63 65 67 70

Intercomm u nity, boundary-span n i ng knowledgeprocesses

l3

Introduction processes Thesignificance of intercommunity knowledge processes Characterizing intercomm unityknowledge ldentity, knowledge, trust,andsocialrelations Facilitating/managing knowledge betweencommunities Conclusion

73 -I J;

Power,conflict,and knowledgeprocesses

87

lntroduction processes: Knowledge the relevance of powerandconflict processes: Powerandknowledge theorizing the relationship Conclusion

87

75 BO B1 B4

88 93 101

I n f o r m a t i o na n d c o m m u n i c a t i o tne c h n o l o g i e as n d k n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n t 1 0 5 Introduction processes Characterizing ICT-supported knowledge management lmplementing ICT-based knowledge management systems Conclusion

9 O r g a n i z a t i o n aclu l t u r e ,H R M p o l i c i e sa, n d k n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n t Introduction LinkingHRM,business, andknowledge strategies Organizational cultureandknowledge management H R Mp o l i c i easn dp r a c t i c e s Conclusion

PART 3 Learning, innovation, andknowledge management

'1 05 luo

117 119 123 tzJ

124 127 130 136

139

1 0 L e a r n i n ga n d k n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n t

141

lntroduction learning Characterizing Thedynamics of organizational learning

141 142 143

C ON T EN T S

Thelearning organization: emancipation of exploitation? Conclusion 1 1 I n n o v a t i o nd y n a m i c sa n d k n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e s

155 157

lntroduction processes innovation Characterizing processes: power,knowledge, InnovaTron andnetworkb

157

Conclusion

113

FART4 {kganizationalcontexts '2

146

158 1t3

1tl

processes in networldvirtual Knowledge organizations

179

^lroouclron 'problem' 'v-V organizations and the of dispersedknowledge rne socialdynamicsof cross-boundary knowledgeprocessesin N-Vorganizations

179 183 186

CT-mediatedknowledgeprocessesin N-Vforms of organizing

192

Conclusion

194

'11 3 K n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e si n g l o b a lm u l t i n a t i o n a l s lntroduction processes Thestructuring of multinationals andknowledge perspective A contingency on structure Knowledge sharingacrosssociocultural boundaries andbusiness systems Conclusion 1 4 Knowledge-intensive firms and knowledgeworkers

Introduction worker Theriseof the knowledge firms Defining andcharacterizing knowledge workersandknowledge-intensive A critiqueanda reformulation: allworkas knowledge workandthe conceptof 'knowledge intensivenes5' Knowledge workandambiguity processes Knowledge andknowledge in knowledge-intensive firms participate Thewillingness of knowledge workersto in knowledge processes: interests? conflicting Managing knowledge workers:balancing autonomy andcontrol Knowledge workersandthe problemof retention HRMpolicies workers to motivateknowledge Conclusion

191 197 198 202 208 212 215 215 zto

217

ztY

222 223 225 228 228 230 232

E

E

CONTENTS 15 Conclusion

235

lntroduction literature management on the knowledge Reflections practice or a contradiction viableorganizational management: Knowledge

235 236

in terms? on of knowledge andagentsin the diffusion the dynamics Understanding management knowledge

238

Conclusion

241 247

Bibliography

249

lndex

265

ryffi,ffi Whythecurrent interest in knowledge management? lntoduction Krrowledge is at the heartof much of today'sglobal economy,and managingknowledge lt.:.sbecomevital to companies'success. (Kluge et al.zOQl, 4) Tlrc knowledgeeconomyis not qs yet all-conqueing,but it is weII on the way to being so . . . it marks a major transition in the nature of economicactivity. Information plus communications teclmology, technology, arethemabling mediaof theneweconomy, but its agentsare knowledgeworkers.. . . The know how of such workersis the most wluable propertyfrrms have.(Giddens 2000, 69) This transformationfrom a world largelydominatedby physicalresources, to a world ,lominatedby knowledge,impliesa shift in the locusof economicpowerasprofoundas tlnt which occurredat the time of the industrialrevolution.(Burton-Jones1999, 3) Thebasiceconomicresource...isnolongercapital,nornqturalresources...,nor 'Iabour'.. . .It is andwillbe knowledge.(Drucker 1993,7 emphasisin original) IVeare witnessinga change'inthe natureof jobs. Musclejobs are disappearing;finger nnd brain jobs are growing or, to put it more formally, labour-basedindustrieshave beendisplacedby skill-basedindustries,and thesein tum wiII have to be replacedby knowledge-based industries.(Handy 1984, 4) Knowledgeis a poorly unilerstoodand thus unilervalueileconomic resource.(BurtonJones1999,5 emphasisadded) Therealquestionis how can a companysystematicallyexploitall dimensionsof knowledge and fully utilize thernto improverevenues, profitsandgrowth.(Klugeet aL.20O1,190)

:{orv often have you read/heard statementslike these in the last few years?Innumerable :rmes, probably. These statements illustrate a number of key themes that have come to

E

C U R R E N TI N T E R E S T I N K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T Table 1.1. Themes in the knowledgesocietyiiterature

Key Themes Knowledgeis of centralimportance to advancedeconomies Knowledgeis keyto organizational performance Organizations & work havebecomemore knowledgeintensive

prominenceduring the courseof the 1990s(Table1.1).Firstly,knowledgeis now the most important and valuable resourcein the advancedindustrial economies.Secondly,knowl. edgerepresentsthe most important economic assetthat businessorganizationspossess, and that it is the prime determinant of their innovativeness and profitability. Finally, the nature of paid employment and businessorganizationsis changing, with an enormous growth in the number of knowledge workers, and knowledge-intensive organizations. On the basis of such assumptions,the contemporary explosion of interest in knowledge managementcan be understood. The sentimentsembodiedin the introductory statementshave been so often repeated that they have almost taken on the statusof canonical statements,unquestionable truths. A general,implicit assumption in the vast majority of articles and books that express these sentiments is that their validity is so obvious that providing empirical evidence to support them is not deemednecessary.Thus, for example, Burton-Jones(1999) in the introduction to his book KnowledgeCapitalismprovides only the scantiestof evidence to support the assertionthat we now live in a knowledge-basedsociety,and that knowledge is the most important economic asset. However, what is the empirical substanceto these claims? Are they really so unquestionably true? Can empirical evidencebe mobilized which challengesthem? This chapter takesa critical perspectiveto theseassertions,and showsthat, in a number of ways,these claims can be challenged. This reflects the general philosophy of the book, which examines knowledge issues from a critical perspective, examining assumptions that are tlpically unquestioned jn the knowledge management literature. The extent to which knowledge management has become a topic of interest can be easily illustrated. Firstly, surveysshow that knowledge management is a topic that an enormous number of businessorganizationshave engagedwith. Secondly,the late 1990s witnessedan exponentialincreasein the number of academicarticlesand booksthat deal with knowledgemanagementissues(seeFigure 1.1). Finally, there is also evidencethat government policy-makers have engagedwith this topic. Thus, a key element of 'New' Labour'seconomic and socialvision for the future of the UK draws on the idea of the information/knowledge society. Many other national governments also have social and educational policies that are similarly predicated in this future vision (Thompson et al. 2001.,924; MacKeogh2001). To answer the question raised by the title of the chapter, why knowledge and knowledgemanagement are currently regardedas so important, it is necessaryto briefly examine the way work and society have been evolving and the way these changeshave been

C U R R E N TI N T E R E S T I N K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

160 140

I

120

n learningorganization

knowledgemanagement

1nn

= EBO :f

z 60 40 20 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 period Six-month t q " ' l 1 . T h eg r o M h i n k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e nptu b l i c a t i o n(sf r o ms c a r b r o u gahn d s + : - 2 0 0 ')1 ':,i:::zed. This will involve elaborating (and then criticizing) Daniel Bell's early 1970s -*:,:e .rision of a 'post industrial society'. This is becauseeither explicitly, or implicitly, :.--.j npically provides the theoretical foundation for much of the knowledge manage-::-: Iiterature. -::is opening chapter has two primary functions. Firstly,it providesa generalcontext '. -::e growth of interest in knowledge management and, secondly, it provides an intro: r;ron to the themes examined in the book. The next section outlines the post-industrial ,,:,;:rt)-thesis, where the resonanceswith the contemporary knowledge management -:;:ature will become apparent.A critique of post-industrialsocietyis then developed, ':ere a nurnber of its primary argumentsare challenged.Finally, the chapter concludes :-, outlining the general aims of the book, drawing out the key themes that it will engage .-:h, and the way they will be examined.

Knowledge society and post-industrial society -he knowledge management literature is tlpically based on an analysis which suggests :3at sinceapproximatelythe mid-1970s,economiesand societyin generalhave become :rore information- and knowledge-intensive, with information/knowledge-intensive --ndustries replacingmanufacturingindustry asthe key wealth generators(seeNeef 1999, :or example).Arguably,the main sourceof inspiration for this vision was, and is, Daniel Bell's seminal book The Coming of Post-IndustrialSociety,which was first published in i973. While earlierwriters, notably Machlup (1962),developeda similar analysis,Bell's l ork has provided the main inspiration for contemporary writers in the area of knowledge management.As a consequence,Bell's post-industrial society and contemporary

C U R R E N TI N T E R E S T I N K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

Knowledge & information intensity of economidsocial

Growingimportance of theoretical knowledge Fig.1.2. Characteristics of post-industrial society

conceptualizations of knowledge society bear more than a passing resemblanceto each other. Burton-Jones(1999, 4), for example,explicitly links his knowledge capitalism model to Bell's thesis. Further, Bell himself has, over time, used the terms knowledge and information societiesinterchangeably with the post-industrial society concept (Webster1996). Bell's analysis is based on a t)?ology of societiescharacterizedby their predominant mode of employment (Webster 1996). Thus, industrial society is characterized by an emphasis on manufacturing and fabrication: the building of things. In post-industrial societies,however, which are argued to evolve out of industrial societies,the servicesector has replacedthe manufacturing sector as the biggest sourceof emplo;.'rnent.One crucial characteristicof Bell'spost-industrialsocietyis that knowledgeand information play a much more significant role in economic and social life than during industrial society,as work in the servicesectoris argued to be signiflcantly more information- and knowledgeintensivethan industrial work. (seeFig. 1.2) However, Bell suggeststhat not only has there been a quantitative increasein the role and importance of knowledge and information, but there has also been a qualitative change in the type of knowledge that is most important. In a post-industrial society,theoretical knowledge has become the most important type of knowledge. Theoretical knowledge representsabstract knowledge and principles, which can be codified, or at least embedded in systemsof rules and frameworks for action. This is to a large extent becausefor Bell, in post-industrial societiesprofessional servicework is of central importance, and this t)?e of work typically involves the development, use and application of abstract,theoretical knowledge more than manual work ever did. This relatesnot just to technicalknowledge,such asmay be usedin R&D processes, but alsoencompasses a large and growing diversity of jobs which increasingly require the application and use of such knowledge-for example, formulation of government policy, architecture, medicine, softwaredesign,etc.

C U R R E N TI N T E R E S T I N K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E I V E IN T

-rI

Post-industrial society I:t If T : n - + ' - : - : : : - , ' c ea n dk n o w l e d g e - b ag soeodd s / s e r v h i caevser e p l a c ei ndd u s t r im a la, n u f a c t u r e d I ,I:i : " : - I - , . , e a l tgne n e r a t o r s . ;pm

l.- -:" :':t elementof Bell'sanalysisis that post-industrialsocietiesrepresent an g,i L- ::..::i orl industria] societies,as in generalmore wealth will be generated,and :-:-i-:duallr-will have better, more fulfilling jobs. In fact, there is a tendency tr ;-_ -: :-anism in aspectsof Bell'svision, ashe arguesthat unpleasant,repetitivejobs _ ilri -:: :n number significantly; social inequality will reduce;(all) individuals will 'I : :::]-d a[lounts of disposableincome to spendon personalservices;societywill :retterplan for itself; and that social relationswill becomelessindividualistic "-_:.greaterscopetor community developmentand collectivesupport : ::rLrrricalevidenceexiststo support this characterizationof contemporary soci" . ', : -. 'l1r'.statisticalevidenceis mobilized to show the increasingimportance of serv: :' lfld the simu]taneousdeclineof manufacturingemployment.Thus, statisticson ' : - ) =iollolrl-rrin the mid-1970swere arguedto show that 46 per cent of it's economic --: -: i\'as from the information sector,and 47 per cent of the total workforce was - . -,'.d in this sector (Kumar 1995). castells (1995), in articulating his vision of a ' :'. r^ information society mobilized an impressiveamount of evidencefrom a wide -:'-ri economies which showed the long-term, historical shift from industry to : -:5. and trom goodshandling to information handling work (Figure1.3). :::r:irical evidenceon the growing skill intensity of much work also supports Bell,s - : ' -: Zuboff (1988) suggested that advancesin computertechnologyhad the potential to :::' ',rork more knowledge-and skill-intensive,through the potential for problem solv' : ,nd abstraction thesetechnologiesprovide workers.This perspectiveis supportedby :::-,rChconductedby Gallie et al. (1998)in the uK in the mid-1990s,where almost ' -.:.rcent of workerssurveyedreported experiencingan increasein the skilt levelsof their :. Furtherevidencealsoreinforcestheseconclusions(Felsteadet al. 2000; NSTF2000). BO 70 60 50 40 30 20 '10

ffi 1921 a 1971 r 1 9 5 1n 1 9 9 0

0 Industry

Services

Goods handling

Information h a n dIin g

F i g .1 . 3 . T h e c h a n g i n g c h a r a c t e r ot fh e e c o n o m y o f t h e U S A i n t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r v ( f r o m C a s t e l l s1 9 9 5 ,t a b l e 4 . 8 , 2 9 6 1

r

r

N K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T C U R R E NITN T E R E SI T However, aswill be seenin the following section, the extent of this trajectory of upskilling is questionedby a number of writers. Overall therefore, agglegate statisticdl evidence appears to suppoft the knowledge society/post-industrialsocietythesis,with Bell'sanalysisof the increasingly important role of information and knowledge in all aspectsof social and economic life being apparently vindicated. Thus, one answer to the question, why is knowledge so impoltant, is that there have been fundamental changes in the nature of economic and social life which have seenits importance grow significantly. Howevet, Bell'sthesis has been the subject of a sustained,and not insignificant critique, much of which has relevanceto the knowledge society vision developed by contemporaly writers on knowledge management. The following section changesfocus to consider these criticisms.

A critique of the knowledge society One of the main criticisms of the argumentsmade by knowledge society,or post-industrial society theorists, is that they typically conflate knowledge work with service sector jobs. Thus, as outlined, aggregatestatistics on the size of service sector employment is usually used to indicate the transition to a knowledge society (seeFigure 1.3). However, not all service sector work can be classifiedas knowledge work, as the service sector is a residual emplognent category for all types of work which are neither manufacturing nor agricultural. Thus the servicesector encompassesan enorrnously heterogeneousrange of job types, including consultants and cleaners,marketing executives and milkmen (and women), aswell asscientistsand securityguards.Thus, the servicesectordoesnot represent a coherent and uniform category of employrnent. While some setvice sector work such as consultancy, research,etc. can be classifiedas being knowledge-intensive, other types of service work, such as security, office cleaning, fpst food restaurant work is low skilled, repetitive, and routine (Thompson et al. 2001). Therefore to suggest that all servicesectoremployment is knowledge-intensive work doesnot acknowledgethe reality of much servicesectorwork.

The knowledgeability of call centre work sectorsIn oneof the largestgrowingemployment Inthe late1990scallcentreworkrepresented account could UK economy of the in the sector employment that suggested the UK.Predictions work is call centre that Bain argue for 2.3 per cent of the totalworkforceby 2003.Taylorand 'integration inbound, whereworkersreceive andVDUtechnologies', of telephone definedby the the character Bainsummarize Taylor and conclusion, In their calls. telephone make outbound or of the callcentrelabourprocessas follows. 'thetvpicalcallcentreoperator isyoung,femaleandworksin a large,openplanofficeor fabricfullAlthoughprobably factorydescription. whichmaywelljustifythe white-collar atedbuilding, workingcomplexshift employee, likelyto be a part-timepermanent time, she is increasingly

I I

C U R R E N TI N T E R E S T I N K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T :::.eTns which correspondto the peaks of customer demand. Promotionprospects and career =I '.ncement are llmitedso that the attractionof better pay and conditionsin another call centre - - . . c r o v ei r r e s i s t i b l e . I n a l l p r o b a b i l i t yw,o r k c o n s i s t so f a n u n i n t e r r u p t eadn d e n d l e s ss e q u e n c e ni' 3 * :' : - - ,:'-'::,ons with customersshe never meets. She has to concentratehard on what P rtu*'; :: : -*3 pageto pageon a screen,makingsure that the detailsenteredare accur"om i s ' &r ' : - - : - : - a ^ 3 s s a i dt h e r i g h tt h i n g si n a p l e a s a nm t a n n e rT. h e c o n v e r s a t i oenn d sa n d a s s h e : r ! 0 r i t--:i - - : : : s e e n d s t h e r e i s a n o t h e rv o i c e i n h e r h e a d s e tT : h e p r e s s u r ei s i n t e n s eb e c a u s e !r'r,$, - : ,: r- ii ^3' work is being measured,her speechmonitored,and it often leavesher men_ fft"lr l' trE-f

: : : , . - 3 e m o t i o n a lel yx h a u s t e d( 1 ,1 ' 5) . - - l a - r 1 9 9 9')" A n A s s e m b l Ly i n ei n t h e H e a d "w : o r k a n dE m p l o v m e n Rte r a t i o ni ns .---. 'dustrialRelations Journal,3012: 101_17 .

cal centreemploymentinvolvesthe use of computers,anda significant amountof on, meanthat it is more knowledge-intensive than routinemanufacturinq work?

:nt':. ,--i-r'. empirical evidence for the claim that employment growth in knowledge_ r-*':., -": ,'L:cupations .r'f hasoccurredis at bestambiguous.For example,taking professional .!irr-r :: . lro$'for knowledgework, Eliasand Gregory (1994)show that there was a growth Lr :- ::!::,lnal occupationalcategoriesin the UK during the 1990s.However,this growth rrrc - - :r.'llrrlous, and further by I99O professionaloccupations still only accountedfor - . r--rlstclr-20 per cent rLrrrr of all employment (this figure is identical to the estimatemade 1r, .'.1-r 2u]0, 774) for the usA in the mid-1990s).Thompson et at. (2001) also argue "::-.i-:::-flo\ment growth has been equally significant in more routine, and low-skilted { - -: i:'rns. Thus, claims that there has been a massiveexpansionin knowledge work, r|- I ii-:l snott'ledgework representsthe largestareaof employment can be questionedas lq -: )-merrhat exaggerated. rl :jler aspect of the knowledge society thesis that has been criticized is the .. r "--:.ns of theoretical knowledge over other types of knowledge (tlpically, tacit q.- :' -:i9e and skills).An explicit exampleof this is Frenkelet al.'sanalysisof knowledge ,,i :r '995r. In their analysisthe knowledge intensity of any job can be measuredon ' " :.: :-mensions,one of which is the type of knowledgeused.For Frenkelet al., theoret; ,':l rrvledgeis usedasa measureof knowledgeintensity,while what they call ,contex* -: .-lorsledgeis not. However,this riskslosing sight of the fact that, to someextent, all ,i r, ,Sknorvledgeablework (Knights et al. 1993, 976), invorving the use of signiflcant ; * - -r.iS of tacit knowledge(Manwaring and Wood 1985;Kusterer1978).This therefore ::rj io disputes and difficulties in defining what constitutes knowledge work, ' - ,::: rpes of workersshould be classifiedasknowledge workers,and leadsto the know_ : -:. :equired in routine, manual work being underestimated(seechapter 14 for this -:l:l;.

-:-;stions have alsobeen raisedregardingthe way knowledgewas conceptualizedby Bell. - i : lnception of theoretical knowledge as codifiable and objective draws on classical -.:"s of scientificknowledge. However,much contemporaryanalysisviews knowledge

C U R R E NITN T E R E SI T N K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T as having substantially different characteristics, being partial, tacit, subiective, and context-dependent(seeChapters2 and3 for thesedebates). While aspectsof the analytical frameworks developed by post-industrial society and knowledge society theorists can be criticized and challenged, this does not mean that society and economies have remained unchanged, or that every aspectof these analyses is unfounded. Thus, it is undeniable that the last quarter of the twentieth century was a period of profound change.For the advanced,.industrialeconomiesthere was not only a significant change in the type of products and servicesproduced, and the nature of work itself,but the role of information and knowledge,in many aspectsof socialand economic life, also increasedsubstantially. However, it is arguably going too far to suggestthat these changesrepresent a fundamental rupture, witnessing the birth of a new type of society. This is becausewhile much change has occurred,there have also been significant elements of continuity---organizations remain driven by the sameimperatives of accumulation, and the general social relations of capitalism remains unchanged. Thus, Kumar (1995, p. 31) suggests,'capitalist industrialism has not been transcended,but simply extended,deepenedand perfected.' Thus to challengeBell'sconceptualizationof a post-industrialsocietyasrepresentinga fundamental rupture with existing social and economic structures is not to suggestthat there has been no change. Equally, such critiques cannot be used to conclude that knowledgeis not important to contemporarybusinessorganizations.

Themes and perspectives This final section of the first chapter articulates the general philosophy of this book, as well as outlining the themesand issuesexaminedin eachchapter.

Critical perspectives This is not intended to be a prescriptive book, providing a toolkit on how to manage knowledge for improved organizational performance. There are plenty of books already in existencethat meet this need.The primary obiectiveof the book is to provide a critical review and analysis of the key themes that underpin the subject of knowledge management in organizations. Thus, its primary purpose is to provide readerswith a rich understanding of the debates and diversity of perspectivesthat exist through drilling down below the surface assumptions that go unquestioned in too much knowledge management literature. This will allow an in-depth exploration of the issuesunderlying the theme of knowledgemanagement.Thus, it should make it easierfor studentsto understand what knowledge in organizations is, as well as the complex dynamics of organizational knowledgeprocesses. While the critique just outlined undermined the generalknowledgesocietythesis,this doesnot make studying the subject of knowledge in organizations redundant and irrelevant. In fact, it makes such a task even more importantl This is becausetaking a critical stanceinvolves going beyond the taken-for-granted assumptionsthat remain unexplored

C U R R E NITN T E R E SI T N K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T D ilfilr*r:,. .: ::escriptive knowledgemanagementliterature.Undertaking such an analys[N]fnq1.l*i-;::damental, and important questions,which are likely to be of perennial r -:: asrvhat is knowledge?Can it be controlled?Can it be codified?What arethe r@Byngsr ,fiir,l:=. -r,.-olr'edin sharingit? The book thereforeengageswith the philosophical and '!ffrslnr"::., =cademicliterature on the subject of knowledge in organizations,and does - : ::-t complexity of the issuesraised,by examining how they are likely to affect rurtrrr:1 t" .:'j :: inorvledgeuse and developmentin organizations.A critical perspectivealso r'l,lurtr fi,ioa-: ::-";ntage of exploring issueswhich are ignored or downplayedby the more pre.::.rature, such as how conflict, power, and politics affect the way knowledgeis ni:n;-r-",-. rft': - ::rnizations. -:= .:r:\ritance of examining the subject from a critical perspectiveis made more 'lrthe fact that critical perspectiveshave been drowned out in the enormous [r[ir 1:ri '':-rature 'hrr.rr -: on knowledge managementthat has been published since the mid1,i4" j".",n and Scarbrough(2001), looking back on a specialissue of the loumal of q,urr|rj::'lrilrlStudies from 1993(Vol, 30, no. 6) on, 'KnowledgeWorkersand Contemporary nli,-. -a::ons' lament that too much writing has lost the criticality that embodiedmuch r l-: ::rrr-rvriting on the subject.This textbook attempts to deal with this by iediscov' - - - - - : : c c r i t i c ap l erspectives.

(er:iTemes -: -::uription and critique of the knowledgesocietythesisraisesa number of important ":n:! rthich the bookwill explore.One of the fundamentalquestionsof interestis -,, :si..',rthat do we mean by the term 'knowledge'?This question will be exploredin : 1:::,, -:r Chapters2 and3. Thesechapterspresenttwo different and contrastingperspect:: - r'irvhat knowledgeis, which reflectsthe statusof the debatein the academicliterat, : :.s n-ill be seen in subsequentchapters, these perspectiveshave quite different * : --:afionswith regardto how knowledgeis managed,produced,and shared. in organizations -::atter 4 then moveson to the question of how knowledgeprocesses ,-: ,:rflmately linked to the topic of human motivation. The chapter challengesthe . :-:rptlon that people are likely.to be willing to sharetheir knowledge,and explores :,',' ihis is the case.This chapter utilizes the now copious literature that arguesfor a --::ier sensitivityto human and socialfactors. -::apters 5 and 6 look at the dynamics of knowledge-sharingand knowledge generation ' -to distinctive types of group situation. Thesechaptersboth illustrate different aspects : :re collective and sharednature of much organizational knowledge. Chapter 5 usesthe : lmunity of practiceconcept to considerthe dynamics of knowledge sharing and knowl: rttr production in a homogeneous group context, where the people working together ,'.'e u.ell-establishedsocial relations, a significant degreeof common knowledge, and a ::i5€ of collective identity. Chapter 5 closesby examining the potential dark side of com--.:nities of practice,which has been relatively unexplored in the communities of practice .::rature. Chapter 6 considersknowledge processesin heterogeneousgroup contexts ,j:ere there are limited social relations, a limited degreeof common knowledge, and a , :iited senseof collective identity (for example in international project teams). This

E

C U R R E NITN T E R E SI T N K N O W L E D GI \E4 A N A G E M E N T chapter shows how the dynamics of knowledge sharing and production in such a context are significantly different from those that are typical within communities of practice. Chapter 7 builds from some of the issuestouched on in Chapter 4: how knowledge processesare shapedby the conflict and politics that arean inherent part of organizational Iife. In general,the chapter considershow and why knowledge and power are inextricably linked, and specifically examineshow conflicts in the development and use of knowledge can also be linked to the fundamental characterof the employment relationship. One of the most heateddebatesin the knowledgemanagementliteraturerelatesto the role that information technology can play in processesof knowledge management, which rangefrom perspectiveswhich suggestthat IT can play a crucial role, to diametrically opposedperspectiveswhich arguethat the nature of knowledgemakesit impossible to shareknowledge electronically. In examining this debateChapter 8 links back to issues of epistemology,and definitions of what knowledgeis, that are discussedin Chapters2 and 3. Chapter 9 links closely with the theme of human motivation, as it examines the way that organizationshave, and can attempt to shape,the knowledge behavioursof their staff through developing specific HRM policies and practices, or culture management exercises. Chapters 10 and 11 examine the subject of learning and knowledge acquisition. Chapter 10 examinesthe generalconcept of the learning organization,which became popularizedthrough the 1990s.The chapterexaminesthe contrastingviewpoints on the learning organization that have emerged, specifically engaging with the debate on whether the learningorganizationincreasesopportunitiesfor self-developmentor simply representsa new method of control and exploitation. Chapter 11 examineslearning and knowledge acquisition during formal processesof innovation and R&D. This chapter shows how these processesare shapedby the tacit and context-dependentnature of knowledge,aswell asthe role played by the broaderinstitutional context. Chapters 12, 13, and 14 shift from being thematically focused to examining the characterand dynamics of knowledgesharing in three different types of organizational context: knowledge-intensive flrms, global multinationals, and virtual/netr,vork organizations. The reasonsfor examining these organizational contexts are that they link closelyto the themesand issuesexaminedin the book, and alsobecausethey all represent important contemporaryorganizationalforms. The book closesin Chapter 15 by engaging with the not insignificant question of whether knowledge management representsa passingmanagementfad. Throughout the book extensiveuse is made of casestudy examplesto illustrate the issuesdiscussed.Theseexamplesare dawn from two primary sources.Firstly,use is made of the vast body of writing on knowledgemanagement,much of which contains empirical evidence on organizational experienceswith knowledge management initiatives. Secondly,use is also made of empirical evidenceon sevencasestudy companiesfrom a range of Europeancountriesthat I was involved in researching(seeAcknowledgements for the detailsof theseprojects).Most of thesecompaniesare utilized in more than one example. Thus, to provide an overview of where each company is used, this information is summarizedin Table1.2.

C U R R E N TI N T E R E S T I N K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T iraule 1.2. Chapterswhere personalcase study examplesare utilized name lormn4rany i::-

--l<

Company type

Chapters where used

Swedish-based fork lifttruckcompany

. Chapter3: autonomousbusinessunits andthe fragmentednatureof the organizational knowledgebase. r Chapter3: an exampleof a successful knowledgemanagemeftprocessbasedin perspective. a practice-based

UK-based casting and injection mouldingcompany

. Chapter2: storiesas a form of collective knowledge. o Chapter9: linkingbusinessand knowledge management strategies. . Chapter3: the contestednatureof 'truthclaims . ChapterB:the dynamicsof ICTmediated processes. communrcat|on

Specialist, UK-based, pharmainternational ceuticalcorporation

: r :alk

U Kp e n s i o n a n dl i f e assurance company

o Chapter5: communities of practiceandthe structuring of work o Chapter6: boundaryobjectsfacilitating intercommunityinteractions.

U Kp e n s i o n a n dl i f e assurance company

. Chapter11: network-based collaboration in systemdevelopment work.

French-based company w h i c hd e s i g n sa n d manufactures mechanical connectors

. Chapter6: the difficulties of knowledgesharingbetweencommlnitiesof practice due to epistemicdifferences. . Chapter7: knowledge-hoarding as a political strategy.

Dutch-based, international bank

. Chapter2: an exampleof a successful knowledgemanagement initiative which perspective utilizedandobjectivist on knowledge. . Chapter6: the difficulties of inter-community knowledge-sharing due to identitydifferences. . ChapterB:the problemswith technologically centredknowledgemanagement initiatives.

" - -: vou,or haveyoubeena knowledge you have worker?Reflecton anyworkexperience - =: Whattypeof knowledge (contextual, was important skill-based knowledge, or abstract, . - : r ' e t i c akl n o w l e d g e ?C)o. u l dt h ej o b sy o uh a v ed o n eb e d e s c r i b eads k n o w l e d g e -:elsive?Dotheyfit with the classical jobs?(suchas imageof knowledge-intensive : : - s r l t a n c yR, & Dw o r k. . . ) . : .',-3i is yourposition on theknowledge societydebate? Dothecontemporary in changes :::^omic andsocialliferepresent a fundamentally different society, deserving the'post'prefix? ^ai uses are there for knowledgeother than organizational profit?Draw up a list of uses to - ch knowledgein organizations put. could be For example,to protector advancethe

r

E

C U R R E NITN T E R E SI T N K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T interesisof a particular subgroup. Howmanyexamples canyouthinkof? Havingdonethis, reflecton the extentto whichthereis potential for the objectives of theseusesto be in con{\ict with the orqaniza{ronat

goat of rrsrng know\edge

I

tor thre p
\rcrprov\srg

performance. organizational

Alan BurtonJones (1999).Knowledgecapitalism.oxford: oxford Universitypress. This representsEgood example of a text clearlyarguing in favour of the knowledge society thesis andexaminingtheimplicationsofitfororganizationsandmanagers. (2001).'Editorial: J. Swanand H. Scarbrough KnowledgeManagement: Conceptsano Controversies',Journal of Management Studies,3Bl7: 913-21. Providesan interestinganalysison how the knowtedge managementIiterature hasevolved since the earlv 1990s. H. Scarbrough andJ. Swan(2001).'Explaining the Diffusionof KnowledgeManagement', Erltlsh Journalof Management,12 3-12. Examinesthe growth of interest in knowledge management from the point of view of the Fadsand Fashionsliterature. F Webster (19961.Theoriesof the InformationSocr'efy(particularly ch. 3). London:Routledge.. Providesa comprehensivedescriptionand critique of Bell's post-industrialsociety thesis.

.F;

::

Epistemologies ofknowledge Chaptert hasintroduced the ideathatincreasingly knowledge is seenas representing the mosl rnportant possess, assetorganizations andthat societyhaswitnesseda significant increase in coththe numberof knowledge workers,and knowledge-intensive organizations. Thisbegsthe 'nostfundamental of questions: what is knowledge? As you mayexpect,however, answering it s by no meanssimple.Thisis to a largeextentbecause in the contemporary literature on knowledgetherearean enormous diversity of definitions, andf romtheway knowledge is described by Cifferent writersit is obviousthatit is conceptualized in hugelydivergent ways. Thissectionof the bookexplores thesecompeting conceptualizations, in an attemptto do jus:rceto thisdebate.Ratherthansuggestthatthereis one single'true'definition of what knowledgeis, the bookreflectsthe fragmented natureof the contemporary debateon thistopicand cresents the differing definltions anddescriptions. As willbe seen,the competing conceptualiza: onsexamined arebasedon fundamentallv differentepistemolooies.

H

Epistemotosy

Philosophy addressing the natureof knowledge. Concerned withquestions suchas:is knowledge objective andmeasurable? Canknowledge beacquiredor is it experienced? Whatis regarded asvalid knowledge, andwhy?

Justas Burrelland Morgan(1979)arguedthattherearetwo broadperspectives in the social scienceswith regardto epistemology: the positivistand anti-positivist,l thereare two broad :pistemological campsin the contemporary debateon the natureof knowledge. Thesetwo perspectives 3ompeting?) havebeenlabelled ina rangeof waysby different authors(seeTable2). fn the one side,there is what will be calledthe objectivist perspective, while on the other s;de,with a radically differentviewpoint, is whatwill be calledthe practice-based perspective on <nowledge. Chapters 2 and3 examinetheseperspectives in turn,examining notonlyhow they :onceptualize knowledge, butalsohowthemanagement andsharing of knowledge ischaracterized, :ased on theirdifferentassumptions aboutknowledge. Therefore, to best understand these I F o ra d e f i n i t i o o n f P o s i t i v i s ms,e e C h .2

E P I S T E M O L O G IOEFSK N O W L E D G E Table2' Competingepistemoiogies Author

Obiectivist PersPective

Werr and Stiernberg(2003) Empson(2001) Cookand Brown(1999) (2000) McAdamand McCreedY (1998) Scarbrough

Knowledgeas theory Knowledgeas an asset of Possesston EpistemologY 'Knowledgeas truth 'Content'theoryof knowledge

Practice'basedPersPective Knowledgeas Practlce Knowingas a Process of Practice EpistemologY Knowledgeas sociallyconstructeo '

Relational'view of knowledge

c o m p e t i n g p e r s p e c t | V e s , a n d t o a l l o w a n e { f e c t i v etwo com p a r i sofo an debate' oftheirdifferences,itisus halves themas being consider and parallel' in chapters readthese a critiqueof the obiectivist aswillbe seen,isloundedon perspective, while the practice-based

perspective,theobjectivistperspectivehasbynomeansbeenabandoned.Intermsofcon p o r a r y k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e a n d a n a | y san i s t h e r e i s e v i dof e nboth c e t hperspectatbothperspec the utilityof having understanding increases therefore This stillwidelyused. to examinethemseparately' beenstructured ives,andis why the bookhas

Theserepresentprobab|ythemostdifficu|tchapterstoread,aStheyaredealingwithre

a b s t r a c t i d e a s . H o w e v e r , t h e y p r o v i d e a u s e f u l fissues o u n d ashould t i o n t ofacilitate t h e i s s ua edeeper s a d d runderessedinther a thoroughgraspof these der of the book.Therefore of whatfollows' standing

#ffiffi Theobjectivist perspective on knowledge What is knowledge? IVhat is knowledgerepresentsone of the most fundamental questions that humanity has grappledwith, and has occupiedthe minds of philosophers for centuries.'thus while the contemporaryexplosion of interest in knowledgemanagement has reignited interest in the topic, it is by no means a new or original question. Furthermore, even in contemporary times, interestin the topic of knowledgestemsfrom more than the growth of interestin knowledgemanagement.For example,post-modernphilosophy has raisedquestionsabout the assumedobjectivity of knowledge,and in the process has sparkedan enormous debate. More relevant to the purposes of this book than engaging with historicar and philo_ sophical analyses of how definitions of knowledge have changed and evorved, is to engage with and describe contemporary conceptualizations of knowledge with the objective of reflecting on their utility and value. Therefore, after quickly distinguishing between data, information, and knowledge, the rest of this ct a ter concen*ates on eramining the objectivist epistemologyof knowledge, as it providei the basisto a sub_ stantial proportion of the contemporary knowledge management riterature. A useful way of arriving at a definition of what knowledge is can be achieved by differentiating it from what it is not. one of the most common distinctionsin the contemporarv knowledge literature is between knowredge, information, and data. Data can be defined as raw number, images, words, sounds which are derived from observation or rrreasurement.For example, data could be the raw numbers, and replies from a marketing t'lrvey of a company's clients, aimed at establishing their changing preferences. i'tformation, in comparison, representsdata arrangedin a meaningfur pattern, data where :ome intellectual input has been added. For example, where the raw data from the mar_ ieting survey has been analysed using a specific statistical technique, to produce some )tructuredresults. Finally, knowledgecanbe understood to emergefrom the application, analysis,and pro_ ductiveuseof data and/or information. In other words, knowledgecan be seenasdata or :ntormation with a further layer of intellectual analysis added, where it is interpreted, neaning is attached,and is structured and linked with existing systemsof beliefs and :odies of knowledge. Knowledge therefore provides the means to analyseand understand

E P I S T E M O L O G IOEFSK N O W L E D G E data/information, provides beliefs about the causality of events/actions,and provides the basis to guide meaningful action/thought. Thus, for example, knowledge is used and developedwhen the analysisof the statisticalresultsfrom the marketing surveyaredone' This may be where the resultsarecomparedand contrastedwith previoussurveys,where particularcausalrelationsand systemsof meaning areinferred (for example,maybethose between 18 and 25 yearsof agehave quite speciflcattitudestowards consumption), and where the analysisof the resultsis usedto luitify a specificcourseof action (for example, focus the marketing of the product on the 18-25 agecategory).

Data o Information . Knowledge

D a t aR a w i m a g e s , n u m b e r s , w o r d s , s o u n d s e t c . , w h i c h r e s u l t f r o m o b s e r v a t i o n o r m e a s u r e pattern intoa meaningful ororganized Dataarranged lnformation

K n o w l e d gMee a n s t o a n a l y s e / u n d e r s t a n d i n f o r m a t i o n / d a t a , b e l i e f a b o u t c a u s a l i t y o f e v e n provides andthought. action to guidemeaningful thebasis Foltowingthe abovedefinitions, one common way that data,information, and knowledgeareintepelated is in a hierarchicalstructure,whete the relationshipis primarily unidirectional, with data supporting the generation of information, which is in turn used to generateknowledge. However, the interrelationship between these elements is much more complicated than this. While data and information can provide the building blocks of knowledge,equallyknowledgecan be usedto generatedata and information, therefore the relationship between them is dynamic and interactive,rather than simply unidirectional. Further,the knowledgewe possessshapesthe type of informationldata we collect, and the way it is analysed.Thus people with different knowledge basesmay develop different interpretationsof the significanceof the sameevents/results.Examplesof such situationsinclude: competing political partiesanalysing,post-hoc,election results;differing interpretations of why a new product releasedid not generateanticipated revenue levels; different interpretations of the results of a marketing suryey.

situationyou havebeenin where differentpeoplehavedeveloped Tryandthinkof an organizational What was the basisof these of specificevents,actions,or circumstances? divergentinterpretations partly the differentknowledgebases, to wholly attributed or be Canthesedifferences differences? individuals? the relevant andvaluesof

Objectivist perspectiveson knowledge While the previoussectionestablisheda broad, and generaldefinition of knowledge,this deflnition said little about what knowledge is actually like, and what its characteristic propertiesare. To do this it is necessaryto examine in detail different epistemological

T H E O B J E C T I V I SP T E R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E Table 2.1. The objectivistcharacterof knowledge Character of knowledge from an objectivist epistemology 1 . Knowledgeis an entity/object philosophy: 2 . Basedon a positivistic knowledgeregardedas oblective'facts' privileged 3 . Explicitknowledge(objective) overtacitknowledge(subjective) 4 . Knowledgeis derivedfrom an intellectual process

perspectives on knowledge.The restof this chapterdescribesthe objectivistepistemology of knowledge (seeTable 2.1), outlining both the way it characterizesknowledge, and how it conceptualizesthe sharingof knowledge.Cook and Brown (1999)referto this perspective as the 'epistemology of possession'asknowledge is regardedas an entity that people or qroupspossess. The entitative character of knowledge representsits primary characteristic from the rbiectivist perspective.Knowledgeis regardedas an entity/commodity that people possess,but which can exist independently of people in a codifiableform. such knowledge ;an exist in a number of forms including documents, diagrams,computer systems/or be in physical artefactssuch as machinery or tools. Thus, for example, a text"mbedded :ased manual of computer-operatingprocedures,whether in the form of a document, t-D, or web page,representsa form of explicit knowledge. From the objectivist perspective, ::e ideathat explicit knowledge can exist in a textual form stemsfrom a number of assump:ons about the nature of language,including that languagehas fixed and objective mean':'lqs,and that there is a direct equivalencebetween words, and that which they denote. .\ further assumption about the nature of knowledge is that it is regardedas obiective. -:e assumptionis that it is possibleto develop a type of knowledge and understanding ::at is free from individual subjectivity. This representswhat McAdam and McCreedy l'-tfJO)describedasthe'knowledge is truth'perspective,where explicit knowledgeis seen :: equivalentto a canonicalbody of scientificfactsand laws which are consistentacross :"*-turesand time. Theseideasaredeeplyrooted in the philosophy of positivism,the idea :-:trt the social world can be studied 'scientifically', i.e. that social phenomena can be :.::ntified and measured,that generallaws and principlesbe established,and that object',: snolvledgeis producedasa result.

Et II

Positivism

,lrr/rL : Comte, a nineteenth-century Frenchphilosopher, foundedwhatis nowcalledPositivism. Durkheim i l ' i i : : ' J U a b l y t h e f i r s t t o t r a n s l a t e t h e s e i d e a s i n t o t h esr eo ac li m o f ol gy.Durkheimwasconcernedto n;r: :lciologyintoa science,andadvocated philosophy. the useof positivistic Thisphilosophy assumes lTir' ::Jse andeffectcanbe established phenomena betweensocial throughthe useof observation and i r * r . - ; a n d t h a t g e n e rl a lw sa n dp r i n c i p l ecsa nb ee s t a b l i s h e d . T h g n e r al a l w sa n dp r i n c i p l e s ee se : r - i:;-te objectiveknowledge.

6\ - l-CCs

E

E P r s r E M o L o c r EoSF K N o w L E D G E The third key element of the objectivist epistemologyis that it privilegesexplicit knowledge over tacit knowledge (seethe following section for a definition and description of tacit and explicit knowledge). Primarily, explicit knowledge is regarded as equivalent to obiective knowledge. Tacit knowledge on the other hand-knowledge which is difficult to articulate in an explicit form-is regardedas more informal, lessrigorous, and highly subjective, being embeddedwithin the cultural values and assumptionsof those who possess and use it (Sayer1992).Nonaka et al. (2000); for example,make this explicit by suggesting that, 'explicit knowledge can be expressedin formal and systematiclanguageand sharedin the form of data, scientific formulae. . . . In contrast, tacit knowledge is highty personal. . . . Subjectiveinsights, intuitions and hunches fall into this category of knowledge,' The final maior assumption is that knowledge is regardedasprimarily a cognitive, intellectual entity (but which is ultimately codifiable). As Cook and Brown (1999, 384) suggest, knowledge, 'is something that is held in the head'. From this perspective,the development and production of knowledge comes from a processof intellectual reflection (individual or collective), and is primarily a cognitive process. One of the most well-known exemplarsof this perspectivein the contemporary knowledge literature is the body of work produced by Nonaka and his colleagues(Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Nonaka et al. 2000). While Nonaka et al. view knowledge as dynamic rather than static, with new knowledge being continually createdthrough a dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge (through their four widely articulated methods of knowledge conversion), ultimately they conceptualize knowledge as an entity that individuals possess.More straightforward exemplars are economic based analyses of knowledge,such asSzulanski(1996)and Glazer(1998),both of whom basetheir analysis on the foundational assumption that knowledge representsa commodity/entity. Glazer'sarticle provides a number of indicators that it is basedon a positivistic philosophy, and has an entitative view of knowledge. For example, this is reflectedin the objective of the article, which is to facilitate efforts to 'develop reliable and valid measures of knowledge' (176,emphasisadded).Further,it alsolocatesitself in a tradition of 'scientific research'(176), and talks about considering,'knowledgeasa "commodity'' (!76). Finally, it concludes in optimistic tones by challenging the pessimismthat suggeststhat attempts to develop measures'ofknowledge are flawed and misguided, and that the difficulties in doing this are surmountable.

Typologies of knowledge Based on these epistemological foundations, the vast majority of the contemporary knowledge literature then progressesby developing typologies that distinguish between fundamentally different tlpes of knowledge. Two of the most common distinctions made, which are examined here are between tacit and explicit knowledge, and individual and collective knowledge.

Tacit and explicit knowledge The tacit-explicit dichotomy is largely ubiquitous in analyses into the characteristics of organizational knowledge. Explicit knowledge, from an objectivist perspective, is

T H E O B J E C T I V I SPT E R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E Table 2.2. The characteristics of tacit and explicitknowreoqe Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

lnexpressible in a codifiable form

codifiable

Subjective

objective

Personal

' impersonal

Contextspecific

contextindependenl

Difficultto share

easyto share

i -'aonymous with obiective knowledge, as outlined in Table 2.2. Thetefore,it is unneces''::1-torestatein detail its characteristics. Sufficeto saythat explicit knowledgeis regarded :: trbis6fivs,standing aboveand separatefrom both individual and socialvalue systems -::-dsecondlythat it can be codified into a tangible form. iacit knowledge on the other hand represents knowredge that people possess,but a::.jchis inexpressible.It incorporates both physical/cognitive skills t*.f, u, il#r;; -iqle, to do mental arithmetic, to weld, or to createa successfuladvertising srogan),and - : initive frameworks(such as the value systems that people possess). The main charac::::stics of tacit knowledgeare thereforethat it is personal,and is difficult, if not impos_ ' ':'e to disembodyand codify. This is becausetacit knowledgemay not only be difficult : _ articulate,it may even be subconscious(see Table2.2). lhis distinction between tacit and explicit knowredge is by no means unique to the ' :'ecfivist epistemology of knowledge, but the specific way that the distinction is theor_ -:d rvithin this perspectiveis quite particular. Importantly, as will be seenlater in the -: jpter, somemajor implications flow from this depiction of the dichotomy in terms of ----:Iray knowledge-sharingprocessesare conceptualized. within the objectivist epi.=nological framework there is an ,either/or, logic to the dichotomy, with knowledge -':ically , being regardedas either tacit or explicit. This characte rizationof the dichoto-y I i :-rplicit in the following quotation, 'ft]here are two types of knowledge: expricit t ro*t_ l :'rfe .nd tacit knowledge' (Nonaka et al. 2000). Thus from this perspectivetacit and l : '-riicit knowledge do not representthe extremes of a spectrum,but instead ,"pr.rart *\ :' pure and separateforms of knowledge. ' rpicaily, this polarized dichotomy is argued to be based on the work of Michael : ' 'anr.i (1958,1983).Nonaka,for example,makes this referenceexplicit. However,aswill :t >hown in chapter 3, there is another, distinctly different interpretation of polanyi,s ::i. r'hich questions this conceptu arizationof the tacit-explicit Ji.ho,o-y. rdividual-groupknowledge ' ..-le \onaka arguesthat knowledge can only ever exist at the level of the individual, :'---:idea is disputed by a range of other writers. Thesewriters argue that while much n.-'- -'rledgedoesresidewithin individuals, there is a sensein which knowtedgecan reside - ;'-'cial groups. This insight is used as the basis for a further dichotomy of knowledge *:':s: into individual and group/sociallevel knowledge. one of the most weil_known

EV,

E P I S T E M O L O G I EOSF K N O W L E D G E

Table2.3. Generic knowledge types (adapted fromSpender1996) lndividual

Social

Explicit

Conscious

Objectified

Tacit

Automatic "

Collective

advocates of such a perspective is Spender (1996), who combined the tacit-explicit dichotomy, with the individual-group dichotomy to produce a two by two matrix with four generictypesof knowledge(Table2.3). Examining social/group knowledge at the organizational level objectifierlknowledge representsexplicit group knowledge, for example a documented system of rules, operating procedures,or formalized otganizational routines. Collectiveknowledge on the other trand representstacit group knowledge, knowledge possessed by a group that is not codified. Examplesof this include informal organizational routines and ways of working, stories, and sharedsystemsof understanding.For example,the value systemsthat people possesshave a collective element, as they are related to values and ideasthat circulate within the particular social milieu that people work within. The massiveexpansion of the culture management industry that has occurred since the mid-1980s, which attempts to inculcate specificvalue systemswithin organizations, suggeststhat there is an optimism amongst organizational management that such sharedsystemsof valuescan be developed.

Distrusting large consultancies:stories as a form of collective (tacit-group)knowledge Castcoisa relatively smallUK-based company thatproduces specialist castings andinjection mouldingsfora rangeof industrial sectors. Toimprove thesharing of knowledge andinformation between divisions, it implemented a common, corporate-wide information management system.However, in process the of selecting a consulting company to helpthemwiththisproject, allof the major,international consulting companies wereexplicitly, anddeliberately excluded fromthebidding process. The same reasonsfor this exclusion were madeby a numberof the staffwho were interviewed-therewasa generalmistrust/dislike of the 'big'consultants as theywerearguediosell large-scale BusinessProcessRe-engineering solutions,and were also extremelvexoensive. Theseattitudesandvalueswere partof the prevailing organizational culture,as theywere relativelyindependent of the direct,personal experiences of the projectstaff.Theseattrtudes were quiteconsistently espoused by differentprojectteammembers,eventhoughnoneof themhad personally workedwjth theselargeconsulting firms.Thesecultural valuesappeared to circulate throughCastcointheformof stories, whichdiffusedthroughprocesses of socialization andcommunication. Storiesweretherefore a visiblemanifestation of the cultural valuestowardsconsultants.Thus storiescan act as importantrepositories of knowledge, and representa form of collective knowledge, whichis widelyshared,but relativelv tacitin nature.

T E R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E T H E O B J E C T I V I SP

Whilestorieshavea collectlve to referto storlesas a form of collectiveknowledge? ls it appropriate possessedby people'who ultimately is knowledge people, such of range a by element,beingshared of the samestory may havequitedifferentinterpretations Whatscopedomanagementinanorganizationhavetoshape,orchangethestoriesthatcrrcuIate withinorganrzatrons?

level at which group However, the organizational context is by no means the only knowledgethat is collective of type knowledgecan exist. one specific,mole miclolevel of practice communities and held within increasinglybeing referredto is that possessed (seeChapter5)'Atamolemaclolevel,Lam(].997)alsofoundthatthenationalcultulal olganizational knowledge' context could play an important role in shaping the nature of UK divisions within a and She examined the sharing of knowledse between Japanese 'socialembeddedas the multinational corpolation and found that what she referredto time-consuming' ness of knowledge' made these processescomplicated and extlemely involved divisions UK and theJapanese Primarily,signif,cantdifferencesexistedbetween of this tacitness of degree in the joint venture in: the dominant type of knowledge;the knowledgeand the knowiedge; the distribution of knowledge within the olganization; differencesto the significant these attributed Lam sharingmechanismstypically utilized. operated' different societal settings in which the two divisions

of havingto shareknowledgewith peopleof differentnationallties? Do you haveanyexperiences in the natureof the differences were thereany notrceable was this processdifficult/easy? process? lf theyexisted'did in the involved those it between underlying knowledge,or the values the sharingof knowledge? complicate thesedifferences

An objectivistperspectiveon the sharing and managementof knowledge and the way knowledge Having examinedboth the fundamental characterof knowledge, this chapter examines the can be categorizedinto different t)?es, the final section of knowledge'This section implications of theseideasfor the sharing and managementof beginsbymakingexplicitthegeneralmodelofknowledge.sharingwhichflowsfrom by outlining the way objectivist assumptionsregarding knowledge,before concluding are characterized' knowledgemanagementprocesses

Conduit model of knowledge-sharing is founded, where Basedon the strict dichotomy on which the objectivist pelspective tlpes of knowledge tacit and explicit knowledgeare regardedas distinctive and separate explicit knowledge is also with quite specific characteristics,the sharing of tacit and

@

EPISTEMOLOGO I EFSK N O W L E D G E regarded as being fundamentally different. From this perspective,while the sharing of tacit knowledge is acknowledged to be difficult, complex, and time-consuming, the sharing of explicit knowledge by contrast is regardedas relatively straightforward. The diffi culties involved in sharing tacit knowledge, and the nature of such processesare not typically central to objectivist models of knowledge-sharing.Theseissuesaretherefore not examined here. Instead,they are consideredin Chapter 3, as the sharingof tacit knowledgeis a more fundamental element of the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge. The privileging of explicit over tacit knowledge, which representsone of the distinguishing characteristicsof the objectivist perspective,becomesapparent asthe knowledgesharing model underpinning the objectivist perspectivefocusesalmost exclusivelyon explicit knowledge. From the objectivist perspective,the easy transferability of explicit knowledgerepresentsone of its defining characteristics.For example,Grant (1996, 17I) suggests that,'explicit knowledgeis revealedby its communication. This easeof communication is its fundamental property.' This straightforward communicability of explicit knowledge is intimately related to the assumptions,outlined earlier concerning the nature of language, and the idea that explicit knowledge can be codified into a textual form. The sharingof (explicit) knowledgerepresentswhat hasbeen referredto asthe conduit or transmitter/receivermodel (seeFigure 2.1). This model suggeststhat knowledge is sharedby the transferral of explicit, codified knowledge (in the form of text, a diagram, or an electronic document, etc.) from an isolated sender, to a separatereceiver. The metaphor of knowledge-sharingas being similar to the posting of a letter is thus appropriate. The idea behind this model is that the sender,in isolation from the receiver,can produce some wholly explicit knowledge, and then transfer it remotely to the receiver. The receiverthen takesthis knowledge and is able to understand it and use it without any other form of interaction with the sender.Further, it is assumedthat no important aspects of this explicit knowledge are lost in the transfer process,and that both sender and receiver derive the samemeaning from the knowledge. Szulanski(1996)is a good example of an article basedon such assumptions.It examines the importance and difficulty of sharing knowledgewithin organizations,let alone between organizations.Szulanskiconcludesthat the 'internal stickiness'of organizationalknowledge is nof causedby a lack of motivation on the part of the senderor receiver,but is most typically due to the characterof the knowledge being transferredand the context of the transfer. While it is acknowledgedthat most organizational knowledge has tacit components, and can be embedded in organizational routines, it is suggestedthat knowledge-sharing involves, 'the exchange of organizational knowledge between a source and a recipient' (L996, z8), which indicatesits basisin the conduit model of knowledge-sharing. Where the sharing and management of tacit knowledge is considered from the objectivist perspective,the focus is on convertingtaclt knowledge to explicit knowledge

F i g .2 , 1 . T h ec o n d u i tm o d e lo f k n o w l e d g e - s h a r i n g

PT E R S P E C T IO VN EKNOWLEDGE T H EO B J E C T I V I S \rhat Nonaka et al. referto as'extemalization'),rather than the direct sharingof tacit knowl:dge. Further,there is a generallyoptimistic assumptionthat much tacit knowledgecan be, It leastpartiatly, converted into an explicit form. This meansthat the difficulties of sharing :acit knowledge can be ignored or dorvnplayed, becauseonce tacit knowledge has been :.radeexplicit it is regardedasbeing relatively straightforwardto then shareand manageit.

Knowledgemanagementprocesses iuilding from theseassumptionsregardingthe sharingof knowledge,we can now exam.::e the nature of knowledge management processesfrom an objectivist perspective of codifying relevant knowledge,convert.zb\e 2.4). The starting point is the processes .''i tacit to explicit knowledge.From this perspectivethere is an acknowledgementthat ::.:ch organizational knowledge maybe tacit. But this is accompaniedby an optimism that : -s possibleto convert much of this knowledgeto an explicit form. For example,while , , .rhe assembly instructions for putting together a cart or all the stagesin a telesales -'rsromerinteraction may not be totally explicit, with effort and work it is assumedto be posr.. to make all this knowledge explicit, and codify it into a complete set of instructiQns/ * ,:r' of knowledge.This can be achievedby getting relevant workers to articulate all their "- - :,,rledgeabout such processes,making explicit all the assumptions,behaviours,and - -:-:)nsthey utilize in accomplishingthe taskbeing examined.Thus, the first stagein any , . :',.,iedgemanagementinitiative, from this perspective,is to identify what knowledgeis :.:.rrtant and then make it explicit.

:::11 an exampleof tacitknowledgethatyou possess.To what extentcouldthis knowledgebe =::l intoan explicitform?Couldit be codifiedsuchthat someoneelsecouldutilizeit? Further, is this processlikelyto be? =.:, and how time-consuming

-

. nert stagein the knowledgemanagementprocessinvolves collecting all the codi1 , , rit f n-l€dgetogether into a central repository, and then structuring it in a systematic iLii :: rrake it easily accessibleto others. Thus, for example, the knowledge may be

Table2.4. An objectivistperspectiveon knowledge manaqement Knowledge management: objectivist perspective . Converttacitto explicitknowledge r Codification/capture of relevantknowledge o Collectknowledgein centralrepository o Structure/systematize knowledge(intodiscretecategories) o Technology playsa key role

@

E P I S T E M O L O G I EOSF K N O W L E D G E Table 2.5. Prioritiesof ongoingknowledgemanagementprojects (adaptedfrom Chart2, Ruggles1998,83.)

Knowledgemanagementproject priorities

% of respondents

Createan intranet

47

Datawarehousing/Create knowledgerepositories

JJ

Implementing decision-support tools

JJ

groupware lmplementing

collectedin a central database,where it is not only stored,but also categorized,indexed, and cross-referenced.The importance of doing this effectively is related to the final part of the knowledge management process:making this knowledge accessibleto all people who may want to use it. One of the primary rationales for organizations managing their knowledge is to allow knowledge to be more widely and effectively sharedwithin organizations (so that 'best practices'can be shared,etc.).This makesorganizing knowledge, and making it accessible,equally as important as the codification/conversion stage. Finally, technology typically plays a key role in knowledge management processesutilizing the oblectivist perspective.For example, technology can play an important role in almost everyelementof the knowledgemanagementprocess.First,it can provide a repository (for example databases).Secondly,it can play a role in the organizing of knowledge (for example with electronic cross-referencingsystems).Finally, it can provide conduits and mechanisms through which knowledge can be transferred into, or extracted ftom, a central repository (for example through an intranet system or searchengine). The role of is examinedmore fully in Chapter 8. technology in knowledgemanagementprocesses Thesecharacteristicsare visible in the majority of the earliestknowledgemanagement initiatives. For example, Ruggles(1998) reports the findings of a survey of 431 US and Europeancompanies.The emphasisof these initiatives was heavily technological (the top four reportedpriorities of theseprojectsall had a significanttechnologicalelement),conceptualizing knowledge as a codifiable asset,and focusing on the codification, storage, and making accessiblethis codified knowledge (see Table 2.5). ManagementReview (ManagementReview& AMA, 1999)reportson a surveyof 1600US managersconducted int998l9, and reachedsimilar conclusions.In this surveythe top prioritieswere: (1) identify useful information; (2) establish repositories and retrieval systems;(3) gather knowledgefrom customers;and (4) createand maintain employeetalent.

Globalbank:an objectivist approachto knowledge management globally dispersed bank.Fromthe mid-1990sonwardsit invested is a Dutch-based, Globalbank the sharingof knowas facilitating as this was perceived significantly in intranettechnologies, systemwhichwas management knowledge Onespecificintranet.based ledgeacrossdivisions. by the lT supportfunction. was developed ultimately successful,

T H E O B J E C T I V I SP T E R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E I obalbank'slT function was enormous,employing 1500 staff in Amsterdam, where it was -'-:'ed, and approximately5000 staff worldwide. There was felt to be a significantneed for a -: ,'rledgemanagement system, to support lT staff, as staff were typicallywidely dispersed, : : - ^ g e o g r a p h i c a l al yn d d i v i s i o n a l l a y ,n d w e r e i n v o l v e di n d o i n gs i m i l a rt a s k sf o r d i f f e r e n td i v i ' -: The objectivistassumptionsregardingknowledgewere apparentin a number of ways. : -.: y, in terms of knowledge,the projectteam had an entitativeconceptionof knowledge,which :: spparentfrom the assumptionthat relevantknowledgecould be codified.Secondly,there == a largetechnologicalemphasisto the project,with it being assumed that the knowledge - :^ had been codifiedcould be stored in databaseslinkedto an intranetsystem. A significant . - : ' t h e i n t r a n e tp r o j e c tt e a m ' sw o r k w a s a l s o c o n c e r n e dw i t h c a t e g o r i z i ntgh i s k n o w l e d g e . - ; an indexingsystem which made it easy for staff to find and accesswhat they were looking '.- : the projectexemplifiedthe transmitter-receiver "ally,with regardsto knowledge-sharing, . : - :f the objectivistperspective:knowledge-sharing happenedthrough staff firstly codifying - = - . ^ o w l e d g e ,p u t t i n gi t i n t h e d a t a b a s ew, h e r e o t h e r s t a f fw o u l d t h e n b e a b l et o a c c e s sa n d " :: : without a need to personallyinteracttogether. - -:e the system had been developedand implementedit was deemed relativelysuccessful, ' , - ."' in the lT supportfunctionmade frequent use of the system, and found it to be hel'pfulin -:-."crk.

-- :-rn systemswhat happens to any knowledgewhichcannotbe codified? : :-::ess of suchintranet-based knowledgemanagement systemsis dependentuponpeople - .'. ingto codifyand storetheirknowledge. Are workerstypicallylikelyto be willingto do this? = - - L, what can management do to motivateworkersto participate in suchprocesses?

-, t ever, as the following chapters show, this characterization of knowledge manage- ::": has been the subjectof a growing critique, both in terms of the way knowledgeis :.ptualized (seeChapter 3), and also in terms of issueswhich are downplayed and .tted in knowledgemanagementprocesses(seeChapters4-9, the'Issues'sectionof :':okt. :ipter 3, for example, suggeststhat the obiectivist framework underestimatesthe : -: to \rhich knowledgeis embodied(tacit),embedded(context dependent),and sub:,:,'"e , value laden). Further,Chapters4-9 considerhow issuessuch as human motiva:'olitics, and personal identity require to be taken account of in attempting to ,:e knowledge.Therefore,asthe book progresses, the somewhatsimplisticmodel of ' -=dgemanagementcharacterizedhere will be challenged.

Condusion

ni

::rapter has examined the objectivist perspectiveon knowledge and knowledge :i-nent. The key elementsto this perspectivecan be summarizedas follows: ' :ased on a positivistic philosophy. :;';.edgeis assumedto be codifiableand objective.

E P I S T E M O T O GO I EFSK N O W L E D G E . Knowledgeis regardedasa discreteentity-something we possessand can make explicit. . Tacitand explicit knowledgeareassumedto be separateand distinctive typesof knowledge. r Explicit knowledge (which is characterizedas being objective) is privileged over tacit knowledge(which is characterizedasbeing personaland subjective). r Knowledge-sharingis basedon a'transmitter-receiver'model. . KnowledSemanagementinitiatives emphasizethe codification of knowledge. . The role of technology in knowledgemanagementinitiatives is regardedaskey. This perspectiverepresentsone of the two dominant conceptualizationsof knowledge, and knowledge managementin the contemporary literature on the subject.Chapter 3 changesfocus to examine the second,totally different perspectiveon knowledge, the practice-based perspective.

BEVIEW OUESTIONS

i

Think aboutyour experienceof social/groupknowledgein the workplace.ls it largelytacit or explicit?Did it exist in the form of systems of rules,routines,stories,etc.? Nationalcultureand communitiesof practicehave been discussedas two types of social context/settingwhere collectiveknowledgecan be seen to exist, ln what other social contexts,in your own experience,haveyou witnessedcollectiveknowledgeto existorganization, family,geographicregion,peer group,friendshipnetwork, profession? Does the use of lT as part of a knowleogemanagernentsystem always indicatean objectivist perspectiveon knowledge?Have any of the organizations you haveworked in developed lT-centredknowledgemanagementsystems?Did they embody objectivistassumptions regardingknowledge?How successfulwere these initiatives? To what extent is knowledgein the socialsciencesoblective?lf knowledgein organizations is acknowledgedas being somewhat subjective,does this mean objectivist-based knowledgemanagementstrategieshave limitedutility?

F U R T H ERRE A D I N G 'A l. Nonaka(1994). DynamicTheoryof Organizational Scrence, KnowledgeCreation',Organization ( 1 ) , 1 4 3 7 . 5 One of the most widely read and referencedpapers on knowledge creation-conversion.Providesa good introductionto Nonaka'sarguments. (1996).'ExploringInternalStickiness: to the Transfer of Best Practice G. Szulanski lmpediments withinthe Fim', StrategicManagementJournal,17,WinterSpeciallssue,27-43. A good examplarof an empiricalstudy of knowledge-sharingbased on the transmitter-receiver mooet. 'Organizational J-C.Spender(1996). Knowledge, Learningand Memory:ThreeConceptsin Search of a Theory',Journalof Organizational ChangeManagement,9(1),63-78. Articulates characteristicsof and relationsbetween four generic knowledge types.

::''

Thepractice-based perspective onknowledge What is knowledge? -rapter 2 provided one specific answer to the question 'what is knowledge?, However, --::robjectivist perspective has been widely challenged, and for a number of different ::asons. Arguably the most fundamental challenge and critique of it is that it is based .:: ilawed epistemological assumptions. Chapter 3 therefore presents an alternative :::swer to the question 'what is knowledge?' This chapter is basedon fundamentally dif:::ent epistemological assumptions, and as will be seen, characterizesknowledge and r:owledge management practices quite differently from the obiectivist perspective :c Iable 3.1). The practice-based perspective conceptualizes knowledge not as a codifiable riect/entity, but instead emphasizesthe extent to which it is embeddedwithin and .::separablefrom practice. cook and Brown (1999) labelled this perspectivean ,epi,:cmology of practice'due to the centrality of human activity to its conception of know,:j.ge. Further, Gherardi (2ooo, 218) argues that 'practice connects ,knowing, with :':ing". Thus, the embeddednessof knowledgein human activity (practice)represents ,::e of the central characteristicsof this epistemologicalperspective. Table3.1. Objectivist andpractice-based epistemologies of knowledge Objectivist epistemology - - .',ledgederivedlrom

process an intellectual

Practice-based epistemology r knowledgeis embeddedin practice o knowing/doing inseparable

--,'.';edge is a disembodied entity/object

o knowledgeis embodiedin people r knowledgeis sociallyconstructed

- - .'.'iedgeis objective'facts'

r knowledgeis culturally embedded o knowledgeis contestable o knowledgeis sociallyconstructed

,: :it knowledge(objective) , :ged overtacitknowledge(subjective)

. tacitandexplicitknowledgeareinseparable and mutuailyconstituted

:, ^ct knowledgecategories

r Knowledgeis multidimensional

@

E P I S T E M O L O G I EOSF K N O W L E D G E Table 3.2. Theoreticalperspectiverelatedto the practice-based Dersoectrve

Writer

Theoreticalperspective

E m p s o m( 2 0 0 1 )

Interprettve

B l a c k l e(r1 9 9 5 )

Activity Theory

Tsoukas(1996)

Ethnom ethodoIogy/interpretive phiIosophy

Cook& Brown(1999)

American Pragmatists

L a v e& W e n g e r( 1 9 9 1 ) Situated Learning Theory Sayer(1992)

CriticalRealism

Suchman(2003)

Actor Network Theory

Practice refers to purposeful human activity. lt isbased thatactivity includes both ontheassumption physical andcognitive elements, andthatthese elements areinseparable. Knowledge useand istherefore regarded development asa fundamental aspect ofactivity.

While the objectivist perspectivewas closely aligned with a positivistic philosophy, the practice-basedperspective is compatible with a number of different philosophical perspectives(Table3.2). Another perspectivethat has much in common with the practicebasedperspective,but has thus far not been utilized by knowledge management analysts is Critical Realism(with the exception of Mutch 2OOr.2 The chapter follows a similar structure to Chapter 2, and begins by firstly outlining the way knowledge is characterizedwithin the practice-basedperspective.Following this, the chapter then examines how knowledge management processesare conceptualized. As the chapter proceeds,the vast differencesthat exist between the practice-based,and the objectivist perspectiveon knowledgeillustrated in Table3.1, should becomemore apparent.

Practice-basedperspectiveson knowledge The practice-based epistemologycan be understoodin terms of sevenspecific,but interrelatedfactors,eachof which are now examinedin turn (Table3.3).

The embeddednessof knowledge in practice Perhapsthe most important difference between the objectivist and practice-basedepiperspectivechallengesthe entitative stemologiesof knowledgeis that the practice-based conception of knowledge.From this perspective,knowledge isn't regardedas a discrete 2 It is beyondthe scopeof this bookto examinein detailthe differences betweenthesetheoretical perspectives.

P R A C T I C E - B A S EPDE R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E Table 3.3. Practlce-based characteristics of knowledge Gharacteristics of knowledge from practice-based epistemology 1. Knowledgeis embeddedin practice 2. Tacitandexplicitknowledgeareinseparable 3. Knowledgeis embodiedin people 4. Knowledgeis sociallyconstructed 5. Knowledgeis culturally embedded 6 . K n o w l e d gies m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l 7. Knowledgeis contestable

entity/object that can be codified and separatedfrom people. Instead,knowledge,or as some of the writers from this perspectiveprefer, knowing, is inseparable.fromhuman activity. Thus all activity is to some extent knowledgeable, involving the use and/or developmentof knowledge.conversely,all knowledgework, whether using it, sharingit, developing it, or creating it, will involve an element of activity. Blackler (1995, lOZ3) rummed this up as follows, 'rather than regardingknowledge as something that people have,it is suggestedthat knowing is better regardedas somethingthey do., As well as challengingthe knowing-doing dichotomy, this perspectivealso challenges the mind-body dichotomy that is inherent to the obiectivist perspective(seeTable 3.4 'ater).As outlined, the objectivistperspective,drawing on the classicalimagesof science, conceptualizesknowledge as being primarily derived from cognitive processes,some:hing involving the brain but not the body. The practice-based perspectiveinsteadviews i.nowing and the developmentof knowledgeas occurring on an ongoing basisthrough the routine activitiesthat peopleundertake.Knowing thus can be seenaslessof a purely cognitive process,and more of a holistic processinvolving the whole body (Gherardi2000). Thus, from this perspective,thinking and doing are fused in knowledgeableactivity, the development and use of embodied knowledge in undertaking specificactivities/tasks. Theseideascan be illustrated through consideringa number of examples.First, Orr,s 1990)widely referencedstudy of photocopier engineersemphasizeshow their knowledge developed through a processof dialogue and improvization, which involved the adaptationof existingknowledgeto new and novel situations.Similarly,Patriotta(2003), 1na study of a FiatAuto plant in Italy, showedthe embeddedness of knowledgein the narrativespossessed by workers,and how thesenarrativesevolvedin the resolution of 'disruptive occurrences'(3a9).Thirdly, DeFillippi and Arthur (199g) in a study of film (i.e. movie) production, showed that for apprentice technicians processesof learning by rt-atchingwere crucial.Knowledgein this context tended to developthrough processes of socialization,observation,and practice.The final example,of the traditional craft skill of metalworking can be illustratedby a quotation: \\'hen you have a bar of iron in front of you which has to be twisted and wrought into a certain shape.. . . then you learn to apply ideasto things. You becomepractical.Youcannotthink the iron

E

E

EPISTEMOLOGO I EFSK N O W L E D G E into the positionand shapethat is wanted,but you cannotdo it without thought.Your thoughts, bounddownto the factsof the in your purpose,mustbelimited,circumscribed, if you areto succeed added) (799 86, emphasis 6, situation.McKinlay This quotation alsoreflectswhat a growing number of authors arearguing (see,for example, Alvesson 2000, 2001), that all work can be regarded as knowledge work, and that all workers, whether bus drivers, cleaners, accountants, management consultants, oI researchScientists,ale, to Someextent knowledge workers. However, this debate will be examinedin more detail in Chapter 14.

Tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparable Another point of departure between the objectivist and practice-basedperspectiveson knowledge is in the way that the relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge is conceptualized.The practice-basedperspectivesuggeststhat rather than tacit and explicit knowledge representing separateand distinctive t)?es of knowledge, they represent two aspects of knowledge and are in fact are inseparable, and are mutually constituted (Tsoukas1996; Werr and Stiernberg2003). One consequenceof this is that there is no such thing as fully explicit knowledge, as all knowledge will have tacit dimensions. Clark (2000) usesthe term'explacit knowledge'to linguistically syrnbolizestheir inseparability (Table3.4). For example text, which is often referred to as a form of codified knowledge, has tacit components, without which no readercould make senseof it. Examplesof these tacit elementsinclude an understanding of the languagein which they arewritten, or the 'The idea grammal and syntax usedto structule them. Polanyi (1969, 195) suggeststhat, of a strictly explicit knowledge is indeed self-contradictory; deprived of their tacit coefficients, all spoken wotds, all formulae, all maps and graphs, are strictly meaningless''

This book: partially explicit knowledge as an author Firstly, for two reasons. explicitknowledge a pieceof partially Thisbookrepresents and frameworks theoretical I havenotbeenableto makefullyexplicitallthe ideas,assumptions, whatI havewritten.Fromthe pointof viewof the readerit canalsobeconvalueswhichunderpin and language, to havea goodgraspof the English asto readit yourequire explicit, sideredpartially toplcs. academic of otherrelevant havesomeknowledge T a b l e3 . 4 . C h a l l e n g i ndgi c h o t o m l e s Ghallenging obiectivist dichotomies Explacitknowledge(tacitand explicitknowledge) activity(knowinganddoing) Knowledgeable Sensualcognition(brainand body)

VN EKNOWLEDGE P R A C T I C E - B A SPEEDR S P E C T IO \Vhile, as outlined in Chapter 2, Polanyi'swork is often used to justify the tacit-explicit ::chotomy, a number of writers suggestthat this misunderstandshis analysis (Brown and )uguid 2001; Prichard2000).Thesewriters challengethis and suSgestthat his analysisis perspective. .rounded more in the practice-based

Knowledgeis embodied .::e objectivist perspectiveon knowledge assumesthat knowledge can exist in a fully .:..rlicit and codified form, that knowledge can exist independently of human beings.This perspectiveon knowledge, -,, sition is fundamentally challengedby the practice-based , ,::ich assumesall knowledge or knowing is personal.The practice-basedperspective :.-,=refore assumesthat it is impossibleto totally disembodyknowledgefrom people into , -:1ly-explicit form. This assumptionis thereforecloselyrelatedto, and flows from, the .::'.ious two issuesexamined:that all knowledgehas tacit dimensions,and that knowl: :.E is embeddedin, and inseparablefrom practice. -:e practice-basednature of knowing/knowledge assumesthat knowledge develops '--::,ughpractice:people'sknowledgedevelopsasthey conduct activitiesand gain experi:.:=. Further, the inseparableand mutually constituted nature of tacit and explicit means that it is not possibleto make such knowledge fully explicit. There will ,- -,";ledge ,,:,r's be an element to which knowledgeresidesin the head/body of those who devel, :":. and possessit. Thus while it may be possibleto partially convert tacit knowledge - : an explicit form, in contradiction with the oblectivistperspective,the practice-based :'::::ective assumesthat such plocessescan never be complete.For example,in terms of , .:jttion most readersare likely to be familiar with from one context or another, con:.: :he nature of knowledgesharingin'master-apprentice'type relations,whete Some- = .rDeriencedattemptsto sharetheir knowledgewith a more inexperiencedcolleague. * -: nature of the knowledge ::actice-basedperspectiveassumesthat the practice-based 'master' means that this knowledge will be to some extent possesses on, :rpertise the ",- , .;ied, and cannot be fully articulatedand made explicit. Further,the practice-based that for the apprentice to learn the knowledge of the master requires I ir - ::,:{tive aSSumeS :t1i: ::€\' communicate,interact, and work together,typically over an extendedperiod , *::her sensein which knowledge is embodied (and simultaneouslyembeddedin 'indeterminacy of practice' ,where rr!,: :. relatesto what Tsoukas(1996)referredto asthe to continuthem llrr ::itntial distinctivenessof all situationsthat people act in requires urlll.::.-<epersonaljudgements.No matter how explicit and well deflnedthe rulesarethat m; r;: ie action, there will alwaysbe someelementof ambiguity or uncertainty that creumy r :ied for actors to make inferencesand judgements.For example, applying this nr rr-.: :-. the perspectiveof the'apprentice' just discussed,no matter how formalized, ,[]r-rr.*-t:c.and explicit the knowledgethey have acquired,there will alwaysbe circum--:.atemelge where an element of judgement will be required. Thus, knowledge/ itfiiirtr.r-:.! urr-olvesthe active agencyof people making decisionsin light of the specific Umi:n,-,:,: iulrrr:- i::nces in which they find themselves.

@

E P I S T E M O L O G IOEFSK N O W L E D G E The socially constructed and culturally embedded nature of knowledge Two factors that are closely interwoven are that knowledge is socially constructed and culturally embedded.It is thereforenecessaryto examine them simultaneously.In stark contrast to the 'knowledge is truth' assumption of the objectivist perspective on knowledge,where it is suggestedthat codifled knowledgecan exist in an objectiveform independent of socialand cultural values,the epistemologyof practiceperspectivearguesthat all knowledge is socially constructed in nature, which makes it somewhat subjective and open to interpretation.Thus, knowledgeis never totally neutral and unbiased,and is, to someextent, inseparablefrom the valuesof those who producedit. As with the objectivistperspective,this viewpoint is basedon a particular understanding about the nature of language.The objectivist perspectiveassumesthat languagehas fixed and obiective meanings, and that there is a direct equivalence between words and that which they denote. Instead,the practice-basedperspectivesuggeststhat language has no such fixed meanings, and that in fact the meaning of languageis inherently ambiguous. This subjectivity, or interpretive flexibility in language,thus.undermines any claims about the objective status of any knowledge, whether it is highly tacit and personal, or whether it is partially explicit and codified. However,the socially negotiated nature of languagelimits the scopeindividuals have to modify and interpret the meaning and use of language(Sayer1992;Tsoukas1996).

its andsustains strengthens, through whicha community develops, making istheprocess Perspective people process an understanding develop is through which Perspective taking the knowledge andvalues. oftheknow|edge,va|ues,and,wor|dview,ofothers.

The socially constructed nature of knowledge applies to both its production and its interpretation. Polanyi (1969)referredto thesetwo processesas sense-givingand sensereading, while Boland and Tenkasi(1995) used the terms perspectivemaking and perspective taking. Thus both the production of knowledge, and the reading/interpretation required to develop an understanding of it, involves an active process of meaning construction/inference. For example, a written report is a piece of partially explicit knowledge,whose meaning is constructedby its author/s. However,readersmay infer a different meaning and analysis. This aspect of the practice-basedperspective therefore has profound implications for the way knowledge is sharedand managed,asthe attractive simolicitv of the transmitter-receivermodel is questioned.

of wherea rangeof peopleinferred experience Canyou thinkof an examplefrom yourorganizational partlybe explained by the f luidityof meaning differentmeaningsf rom a report?Canthesedifferences inlanguage?

P R A C T I C E - B A SPEEDR S P E C T IO VN EKNOWLEDGE Further,this processof meaning construction/inferenceis typically culturally embedded. The meanings people attach to language/eventsare shapedby the valuesand assumptions of the social and cultural context in which people live and work. one way in which preexisting values and assumptions influence these processesof knowledge construction/ knowledge interpretation is through the flltering of data-information in deciding what is considered'relevant'. A dramatic, and tragic example of such a filtering processwas one of the contributory factorsto the ChallengerSpaceShuttle accident (Baumard 1999; Starbuck and Milliken 1988).In this caseNASAengineersneglectedwhat tumed out to be important information regardingO-ring erosion,asbasedon the assumptionsthey had, sucha situation was regarded as presenting a minute risk. This cultural embeddednessresults in much knowledgebeing context-specificand context-dependent,making its relevance,and transferability between contexts not necessarilyalwaysstraightforward. The idea of knowledge being culturally embeddedlinks to the concept of collective knowledge discussedin Chapter 2. Collective knowledge was shown to be culturally embeddedin a number of different contexts/such as within communities of practice,or tvithin the context of a national or regional culture. What distinguishesthe cultural embeddingof knowledgein the practice-based perspectivefrom collectiveknowledgein the obiectivist perspective,is that from the practice-basedperspectiveall knowledge is to some extent culturally embedded.Thus from this perspective,none of the knowledge we possess is totally separateand independentfrom the socialcontextsthat peopleoperatein. The simultaneousmultidimensionalityof knowledge The use of taxonomies,asillustratedin the previouschapter,suggeststhat all knowledge can be classifiedinto distinctive categories,i.e. that it is either tacit or explicit, or that it is tacit-collective,or explicit-individual, etc. This idea is questionedby a number of writers trho suggestthat while such an approachmay have analytical,benefits,it misrepresents the complexity of organizationalknowledge.Tsoukas(1996),for example,suggeststhat dichotomies such as tacit-explicit and individual-group are unhelpful as they disguise the extent to which theseelementsareinseparable,and mutually defined.Blackler(1995, 1032)makesa similar point by suggestingthat, . . . it is a mistaketo assume that embodied, embedded, embrained, encultured andencoded know,:dgecansensiblybeconceived asseparate from eachother.Knowledge is multi-faceted andcomplex, :eing both situatedand abstract,implicit and explicit,distributedand individual,physicaland :.lrental, developing andstatic,verbalandencoded. Thus the practice-base perspectiverejectsthe taxonomy-basedapproachto categoriz-ng knowledge.For example,considerthe knowledge that an engineerusesto design a car'schassis,or that a craftsman(/person)usesto assembleand build it. In both casesthis inowledge is simultaneously individual and collective; tacit and explicit; physical and nental; and abstractand situated.

--

nk of somespecificorganizational knowledgethatyou possess.Canit be classified intoa neat :::egory,suchas tacit-collective, or doesit havemultipledimensionssimultaneously?

E P I S T E M O L O G IOEFSK N O W L E D G E The contestible nature of knowledge The flnal key aspect of the practice-basedperspective is the acknowledgement that the subjective, socially constructed, and culturally embedded nature of knowledge, means that what constitutes knowledge is open to dispute. This therefore challengesand undermines the idea central to the objectivist perspective that it is possible to produce truly 'legitimate' obiective knowledge. Thus, competing conceptions of what constitutes knowledge can occur where different groups/individuals develop incompatible and contradictory analysesof the same events, which may lead to conflict due to attempts by these groups to have their knowledge legitimated. One of the main consequenceswhich flow from this, therefore, is that issuesof power, politics, and conflict becomemore important than are acknowledgedby the obiectivist perspective.Most fundamentally, Michel Foucault'sconception of power/knowledge suggeststhat these concepts are inseparable(Foucault 1980; McKinlay 2000). Relatedly, Storey and Barnett (2000) suggestthat all knowledge management initiatives require to be seenashighly political, and are likely to be accompaniedby what they desqibe as'turf wars'by different organizationalinterest Sroupsattempting to gain.some control over these projects.The importance of acknowledgingand taking account of the contested and political nature of knowledge is magnifled by the fact that this aspectof knowledge, and knowledge management initiatives is typically either neglected or ignored by the maiority of the knowledge management literature. Theseissuesare examined more fully in Chapter 7.

:3ir: I"-l:i1T::l:lT*:iig:liig::::Tr:ii9'i1Y:I pharma-co company.Untilthe early1980sit hadbeena governmentis a UK pharmaceutical in partof the company andby the mid-1990stherewas stillevidence laboratory, ownedresearch the mid-1990sa During predominated. focusedculturewhichhadhistorically of the technically dominantrhetoThe system. management a new information was madeto implement decision natureof their ric usedby the projectteamto justifythe needfor changewas thatthe changing of theirprocompetitiveness the improve made to be to changes marketsrequiredsignificant Manufacturing World project was the An importantfigureto Pharma-co's ductionfacilities. recent it. Whenthe projectstartedhe hadbeena relatlvely who stronglychampioned Director, of adoptingmorecommerStrategy long-term As partof Pharma-co's recruitto the organrzation. suchattitudes to introduce identified been practices need had a operating cialandcost-sensitive was oneof these Director of theWorldManufacturing Therecruitment to itsseniormanagement. 'commercial' knowledgefrom workingoutsideof the companywas Thus his appointments. changesemerged to the proposed resistance However, by seniormanagement. highlyregarded proposed changes the suggested They production function. withinthe from middlemanagers staylng through couldremaincompetitive andthatPharma-co unnecessary, werefundamentally culproducts. Thetraditional innovative of technically andproduction focusedon the development production. around focused was predominant Pharma-co within turewhichhadbeenhistorically

P R A C T I C E - B A S EPDE R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E - - e o f t h e m a i n f a c t o r ss t r e n g t h e n i n gt h e a r g u m e n to f p r o d u c t i o nm a n a g e m e n tw a s t h e i r :::ailed knowledge of the company's internal manufacturingpractices.Thus at the start of r-aTma-co'schange projectthere was a highly politicalconflict between those for and against --:nge which centred on the validityof their knowledgeand the way they used it to legitimate --: r dlfferentanalysesof the extent to which changewas needed.

- s:ch situations, evaluatethe competingargumentsand to what extentis it possibleto objectively : = : : d eo n t h e ' c o r r e c t ' c o u r soef a c t i o n ? ^ of the interestsgroupsayaboutthe culturalembeddedness " tt doesthe differentperspectives -'
lmplicationsfor the nature of the organizationalknowledge base - re above outlined characteristicsof knowledge have profound implications with regard : - the nature of organizationalknowledgebases,as a growing number of writers recognperspectiveon knowledgesuggeststhat rather than being unitary .-e. The practice-based .:d coherent, organizational knowledge basesare in fact fragmented and dispersed, -eing made up of specializedand specificknowledge communities, which have some :=qree of overlapping 'common knowledge' (Kogut and Zanger 1992). This led Brown :::d Duguid (1991,53) to suggestingthat organizationsrequire to be conceptualizedas a : rmmunity-of-communities', and Blackler et al. (2000) as decentred and distributed ,::orr'ledgesystems.Finaliy, as will be seenin the following section,theseinsights have ::tormous implications for the sharingand managementof knowledgein organizations. The fragmentationof the organizationalknowledgebaserelatescloselyto the idea that .::orvledgeis embeddedin practice.Typically,the practicesundertakenby organizational are localizedand specific,being shapedby .'J, and hence the knowledgethey possess, ::-e particulardemandsof their context (local customers,market conditions, characterof -..ional/regional regulation and legislation,etc.).The degreeof fragmentation and spe--"iization will alsobe relatedto the culture of the organization,and the extent to which : -ncouragesand supportsautonomousor standardizedworking practices.

Autonomous businessunits and specializedknowledge communities - :.ved-Truck, beenorganforklifttrucks,workhadhistorically whichsold,rented,andserviced s i t h i ns p e c i f i c , h i c hh a dr e s p o n s i b i lfiot yr a 1bl u s i n e sw : = t r t o s m a l ld, i s c r e t b e u s i n e susn i t sw betweenbusiness Withinthisstructure, therewas littleneedfor interaction :=:3'aphicregions. be u s i n e s s eW s .h i l ee a c hb u s i n e susn i ti n p r i n c i p l e , : s .a n dt h e yo p e r a t eadsv i r t u asl t a n d - a l o n autonomyoverhow in realitytheyhadsignificant andservices, , - : :he samerangeof products -:, Cidthis.Thiswas becauseboththe natureof the marketandcharacter varied of customers

E

E

E P I S T E M O L O G I EOSF K N O W L E D G E signlficantlyfor each business,and alsothat managementin each businessunit offered different levelsof serviceand support.The autonomyof the businessunitswas such that the evolutionof their working practices,the upgradingof their lT systems etc., was done purelyon the basisof localconsiderations. Thus,discreteand specific knowledgecommunitiesdeveloped,with staff in each businessunlt possessingsubstantialamounts of specializedknowledge,reievantto their own localizedworking practices,and customer demands,which had limited transferabilitvand relevance,in other businessunits.

ls the existenceof suchspecialist communities, with theirown knowledgebasesandways of workingnecessarily a problemfor organizatlons? Towhat extentis it possiblein multidivisional corporations to balancethe conflicting demandsof providingdivisions the autonomyto work independently and havesome levelof standardization acrossthe corporation ?

Not only can the knowledge of organizational communities be different (i.e. specialized and specific),but it may also be basedon qualitatively different assumptions,values, and interpretativeframeworks.Brown and Duguid (2001)referredto these as 'epistemicdifferences'. For example, the communication and interaction difficulties between staff from different functions of an organization (such as production and R&D, or finance and R&D), or between staff from different disciplinary backgrounds (such as in a multidisciplinary project team) can be to some extent explained by such differences.As will be seen in Chapter 6, where this issueis explored in detail, this significantly affectsthe dynamics of knowledge-sharingprocesses. Finally, these issuesare again examined in Chapter 13 which examines knowledge-sharing within the context of global multinationals, where, what Becker(2001)referredto this asthe problem ot'large numbers',meansthat asorganizational size increases,so do the problems in managing an increasingly fragmented organizationalknowledgebase.

Thinkaboutan organization you haveworkedin.Was its knowledgebasefragmented? Further, what factorsinfluenced the natureof the knowledgebasemore:the management cultureor the diversity of localconditions?

A practice-basedperspectiveon the managementand sharing of knowledge Having consideredin detail how the practice-basedepistemologyconceptualizesknowledge it is now time to examine the implications of theseideasfor understanding the characterof organizationalknowledge-sharingand knowledgemanagementprocesses(seeTable3.5). One of the central components of the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge managementis that it eschewsthe idea that it is possiblefor organizationsto collect knowledge

P R A C T I C E - B A S EPDE R S P E C T I VOEN K N O W L E D G E

E

perspectiveon knowledgemanagement Table 3.5. A practice-based Knowledge management from a practice-based epistemology 'perspective 'perspective making'and requires Knowledgesharing/acquisition an understanding of tacitassumptions taking'-developing through Knowledgesharlng/acquisition - ' r i c h ' s o c i ailn t e r a c t i o n - immersionin practice-watchingand/ordoing

3 . Managementroleto facilitatesocialinteraction - , .ether into a central repository,or for middle and seniormanagersto fully understand - ,= knowledgeof those who work for them (Goodall and Roberts2003). Tsoukas(L996, . I quoting Hayek, suggeststhat a belief in the ability to achievesuch a staterepresents -:-: slnoptic delusion . . . that knowledgecan be suweyedby a singlemind.'Thus man.:.:ial understandingof organizationalknowledgewill alwaysbe fragmentedand incom. :.i, Zlrldattempts to collect knowledge in a central location likely to be limited. The ' .-rn'ing quotation from Tsoukas(7996,22) sums this up, and points towards the 'the key :::;tice-based perspective/sconceptualizationof knowledge-sharingprocesses: ' ,;hieving coordinatedaction doesnot so much dependon those"higher up" collecting * .t and more knowledge,ason those "lower down" finding more and more waysto get , :-::ectedand interrelatingthe knowledgeeachone has.' perspectivefurther suggeststhat the transmitter*receivermodel of -:e practice-based - ',i1edge-sharing is questionablebecausethe sharing of knowledge does not involve ' - . '-mple transferral of a fixed entity between two people. Instead,the sharing of knowl: : i: involves two people actively inferring and constructing meaning. This perspective ,<,.eststhat to be effectivethe sharing of knowledgerequiresindividuals to developan ,.'::.ciation of (someof) the tacit assumptionsand valueson which the knowledge of --.::s is based-the processesof 'perspectivemaking' and 'perspectivetaking' outlined : r:.,:r by Boland and Tenkasi(1995).This challengesthe assumption embeddedin the ':.:-:nitter-receiver model that the knowledgeexchangedin suchprocesses is unchanged. (2000) perspective knowledge-sharing practice-based on suggest the ,'."ni and Scarso 1, .::t:sents a'language game'/ due to the importance of dialogue and languageto such ;-.-:sses.BolandandTenkasi(1995,358)arguethateffectiveknowledge-sharinginvolves, r tr'-rc€ssof mutual perspective taking where distinctive individual knowledge is : i .:3nged, evaluatedand integratedwith that of others in the organization.' .= iogic of the 'languagegame' model complicatesthe nature of knowledge-sharing r- i,:sses,as the inherent ambiguity of language,combined with the fact that those - .',.edin the knowledge-sharingprocesshave different cognitive frameworksmeans " ;: ::rereis alwaysscopefor differing interpretations.Thus, as you read this book, the Tr::a-1g you take from a pieceof partially explicit knowledge may vary from the mean" i - -ltend to convey. -,:se processes typically requirean extensperspective-making, and perspective-taking ', : ::]tourit of socialinteraction and face-to-facecommunication, which is a conclusion

E

EPISTEMOLOGO I EFSK N O W L E D G E reachedby a number of empirical studies(see,for example,Lam 1997,2000; LeonardBarton 1995;Swanet al. 1999).The acquisitionand sharingof knowledgetypically occur through two distinct, but closelyinterrelatedprocesses: 1. Immersion in practice-for example learning by doing, or learning by watching. 2. 'Rich' socialinteraction-for example,an interaction which allows people to develop some level of trust with each other, as well as develop some insights into the tacit knowledge,values,and assumptionsof eachother. Theseprocessesare interrelated becauselearning by doing is likely fo simultaneously involve an element of social interaction, and vice versa,the sort of 'discursivepractice' referredto by Gherardi (2OOO,221).

Swed-truck: an example of practice-basedknowledge management In the late 1990s Swed-Truck(describedearlier-see pages 35-6) decided to implement an organization-wide informationmanagementsystem, with the objectiveof introducinga greater level of coordinationand standardization across its businessunits. To implement this it used a sociallybased model of knowledge-sharing, which made extensiveuse of intensivesocialinteraction.This can be consideredby examiningthe system developmentphase only.The system being implementedinvolvedthe introductionof a common informationsystem acrossa significant numberof differentbusinessunits.As outlinedearlier,their businessunits had operatedquite autonomouslyfrom each other, and as a consequencehad developedtheir own specialized knowledgebases.The projectteam decidedthat the developmentand implementationof a common informationmanagement system requiredthe utilizationof this distributedknowledge, which was achievedthroughthe creationof a projectteam bringingtogether staff from a range of their businessunits (who worked part time on the project).As a substantialamount of development work was necessary,this processlastedfor a year.This interbusinessunit projectteam worked intensivelywith consultantsto develop common systems that were compatiblewith the diverse needs of their different business units. While the project was not without its problems and delays, the project was deemed a success, and was implemented close to predictedtime-scales.

To achieverichsocialinteractions is it necessary to get peopletogetherface-to-face? How importantto the successof knowledge-sharing processesis the existenceof trust between participants to suchprocesses?

From a practice-based perspective,the managerialrole is thereforeto encourageand facilitate the type of communication and social interaction processesthat will allow effective perspectivemaking and taking to occur.This can be done through an enormously diverse

P R A C T I C E - B A SPEEDR S P E C T IO VN EKNOWLEDGE ' i :-:e of waysincluding (to highlight iust a few examples): o ::\-elop a knowledge-sharing culture (through rewarding people for sharing); " ::;litating the development of organizational communities of practice; . -;.rriding forums (electronicor face-to-face) which encourageand support knowledge::-aring; . :::)lement a formalized 'mentoring' system to pair experiencedand inexperienced "._:kers l:ese issuesare examinedin more detail in subsequentchapters,with Chapter 4 look- . jt generalissuesof motivation to shareknowledge,Chapters5 and 6 looking at the :'=:inc dynamics of knowledge-sharing within and between communities, Chapter 7 , .lng at the political nature of knowledge-sharing,while Chapter 9 considersthe role ' - j- Luganizationscan play through their human resourcemanagement policies and --:ire management practices.Finally, Chapter 8 considersthe role that information ,:=ns may be able to play in facilitating perspectivemaking and taking processes.

6onclusion - - : rclusion, Chapters 2 and 3 have outlined two distinctive epistemological perspect:: '"rhich characterizeknowledge in extremely different ways (seeTable 3.1). These "n,:.:tctives also conceptualized knowledge-sharing and knowledge management : - .:-tses differently. They therefore have very different managerial implications with ' ::':d to how knowledgemanagementefforts should be organizedand structured: .

:',;titist perspective:focus on the codification and collection of knowledge, cleate --:chanisms to allow this knowledge baseto be searchedand accessed,such assetting up . :tarchable databaseand encouraging staff to codify their knowledge and store it there. . :-.;-iice-basedperspective:facilitate interpersonal knowledge-sharing through diverse - ::ns of interaction and communication, such asdeveloping the levels of trust between -::: membersof a new proiect team through allowing them to interact extensively face- . -:ace(perhapsin both work and socialcontexts)at the initial stagesof the project.

[

.nrvrrwouESTl

::: '' instructionson how to conducta certaintask.What tacit knowledgeis necessaryfor : - :c make sense of them? What does this say about the inseparability of tacit and explicit -:,', edge? :

- : - , o u t h i n ko f a n e x a m p l ef r o m y o u r o w n e x p e r i e n c e o f w h e r e t h e r e h a s b e e nd i s p u t ea n d . - -= ct between competingknowledgeclaims?What politicaltacticsand strategiesdid the 'expertise' - - -' cting partiesutilizeto justify their position?Did they use external as a way of : : : ^ a l i z i n gc l a i m s ,e t c ?

E

E

EPISTEMOLOGO I EFSK N O W L E D G E t Compare the two perspectives on knowledge outlinedin Chapters 2 and3. Whichonemore closelymodelsthe natureof knowledge in the organizations thatyou haveworkedin?lf theseorganizations implemented knowledge management initiatives, whichepistemological perspective weretheybasedon?Didthisaffectthe successof theseinitiatives?

F Blackler(1995).'Knowledge,Knowledge work andorganizations: An overviewano lnterpretation',Organization Studies,1616:1021|-46. Widely referencedarticle that advocatesadopting a practice/activity-basedview of knowledge S. CookandJ. Brown(1999).'BridgingEpistemologies: The Generative Dancebetween organizational Knowledge and organizational Knowing',organizationscience,1ol4:381-400. Links together the objectivistand practice-basedperspectivesinto a unitary framework. H. Tsoukas(1996).'The Firmas a Distributed KnowledgeSystem:A Constructionist Approach', StrategicManagementJournal,1J (WinterSpeciallssue):11-2S. Argues that organizationalknowledge basesare highly distributed. Specialissueof Organizationon'Knowing in practice,(2OOO],712. A collection of theoreticaland empiricalpapers atl embedded in the practice-basedperspective,but utilizinga diversity of theoreticalframeworks.

Social andcultural issues related tomanaging andsharing knowledge ^ ' ,^ i l e e n o r m o u sn u m b e r so f c o m p a n i e sh a v e i m p l e m e n t e dk n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n p t rojects, -.:ry of them have been eitherpartialsuccessesor outrightfailures. Surveysconsistentlyreveal :^al the main obstaclesto success in such initiativesare social and culturalfactors (Table4). - ';rther conclusionthat could be inferredfrom these resultsis that the organizations surveyed : : 1ot consistentlytake adequateaccountof these factorsin their effortsto managetheir knowl= : : e . T h u s ,f o r t h o s ec o n c e r n e dw i t h a c h i e v i n g a n i n t e l l e c t u auln d e r s t a n d i nogf t h e d y n a m i c so f , - rwledge managementinitiatives,as well as those concernedwith makingspecific knowledge -.:lagement projects s u c c e s s f u la, p p r e c i a t i ntgh e s i g n i f i c a n c oe f s o c i a la n d c u l t u r afl a c t o r si s , : a ' . T h e s i x c h a p t e r si n t h i s s e c t i o no f t h e b o o k a l l d e a l w i t h t h i s t o p i c a n d t h u s a r g u a b l y -:cresent the core of the book. 3hapter4, the opening chapter in this part, has two broad objectives.First,it examinesthe :-estion of why socialand culturalfactors are so important by consideringboth why human -:tivation is essentialto the sharing,codification,or searchfor knowledge,and further,why it - = ^ ' i b e t a k e nf o r g r a n t e dt h a t p e o p l ew i l l b e w i l l i n gt o a c t i v e l yp a r t i c i p a tien s u c hp r o c e s s e sT. h e .::ond objectiveof this chapter is to providea brief overview of the diverse range of specific '::iors that affect the attitudesof workers to participatein knowledgemanagementinitiatives. s-9), - - a p t e r 4 t h u s a c t s a s a s p r i n g b o a r idn t o t h e r e m a i n i n gc h a p t e r si n t h i s s e c t i o n( C h a p t e r 5 ' ,^ i c he a c hb u i l df r o m t h i s o v e r v i e w l,o o k i n gi n d e p t ha t a r a n g eo f s o c i a a l n d c u l t u r atlo p i c s . 3hapter 5 examines the dynamics of knowledge-relatedprocesseswithin communities of :-acticeC . h a p t e r6 b u i l d sf r o m t h i s b y e x a m i n i n gt h e d y n a m i c so f k n o w l e d g e - s h a r i ni nga t o t a l l y r "erent context,where, unlikein communitiesof practice,peoplehave limitedcommon knowl: : g e a n d o n l y a w e a k s e n s e o f s h a r e di d e n t i t y T . h i s c a n i n c l u d ek n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e sw i t h i n - , l t i d i s c i p l i n a r tye a m s ,o r k n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e sw h i c h s p a nf u n c t i o n aol r o r g a n i z a t i o nbaol u n d : ' : s . C h a p t e r7 f o c u s e so n t h e t o p i c so f p o w e r a n d c o n f l i c t w , h i c h ,a s w i l l b e s e e n ,a r e u n d e r -=searchedareasin the knowledgemanagementliterature. ChapterB examinesthe impact and

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S Table 4. obstaclesto the successof knowledgemanagementinitiatives

Author

Survey details

Surveyresults

R u g g l e (s1 9 9 8 )

4 3 1 R e s p o n d e n itns U S A a n d Europe.Conductedin 1997

. biggestproblemin managingknowledge 'changingpeople's (56%of behaviour' respondents) . biggestimpedimentto knowledge 'culture'(54o/o transferal of respondents)

Management Review(1999)

1 6 0 0R e s p o n d e n itnst h e U S A . Conducted1998/9

Threemostcommonproblems: 'gettingpeople 1. to seekbestpractice, 'measuring 2. results' 'gettingpeople 3. to sharetheirknowledge,

KPMG(2OOO)

423 largeorganizations from USA,UK,France a n dG e r m a n y

Two most importantreasonsfor the failureof knowledgemanagement initiatives to meetexpectations: 1. 'lackof useruptakedue to insufflcient communication' .20%oI respondents) 'everyday 2. use did not integrateinto n o r m aw l o r k i n gd a y '( 1 9 %o f respondents)

P a u l e e an n d Mason(2002)

46 respondentsin New Tealand f rom organizations (publicand private)

Edwardset al (2003)

25 Academicsand practrtioners involvedin KM field

The singlelargestbarrier(identified by 45% oI respondents) to knowledge management was culture. ' P e o p l e ' a n'dC u l t u r e ' a r e themost rmportantissuesorganizations should emphasize in their KM initiatives

roleof technologyin knowledgemanagementinitiatives.Finally,Chapterg

considersthe rolethat culturemanagementand human resourcemanagementpracticescan have on knowledgemanagementinitiatives, and in shapingthe attitudesof workersto participatein knowreogeprocesses more generaily.

ffiffi==+ 'Why

mYknowledge?' I share shoutd to share whatmotivates People knowledge lntroduction ..1:hetopicofknowledgemanagementhasmaturedandevolvedinterest.inhuman, significantly. Thus, while the earliest literature :.,,:ural, and social qu.stlon, has grown .:dorganizationalattemptstomanageknowledge)typicallyassumedpeoplewould .="riilingtosharetheirknowledge'andasaconsequenceneglectedtolookatfactors -.--']tmayinfluenceknowledge-sharingattitudes,laterlitelatuleillustratedhow,people,. This chapter provides an overview :=-:ted factors are key to knowledge management. of examining the interrelated questions ::-l an introduction to these issuesthrough i1-,humanmotivationiskeytoknowledgemanagementinitiatives,andwhat j.lolshavebeenfoundtoinfluencetheknowledge-sharingattitudesandbehavioursof '', ,rkers. of two previous chapters on epistemotrogies The issuesraised here connect to the r : o r v l e d g e a s , c r u d e l y , t h e e a r l y k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t l i t e r a t u r eperspective ' w h i c h t y p ion cally ,people,-relatedfactors,was firmly embeddedin the objectivist .:glected !:.owiedge,whilethegrowingrealizationoftheimportanceofsuchfactolsowesmuchto .::sightsdevelopedfromapractice-basedperspective.Fundamentally,thisisbecauseits views greater account of human agencyt and : -,nceptualization of knowledge takes personal' r:-o\{ledgeasbeinglargelytacit and T h i s c h a p t e r i s s t r u c t u r e d i n t o t h r e e m a i n s e c t i o n s . T h e f i r s'people'-related t o u t l i n e s w h y t issues' heearly played down conspicuously so literature management jio\vledge .lesecondandthirdsectionsthenconsiderthequestionsofwhyhumanmotivationiS , . : \ ' t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e d y n a m i c s o f k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t i n i tparticipating i a t i v e s ' a n d winh a t influence people,s attitudes to factols organizational and _':rsonal management initiatives' :.:ro1\4edge

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

The'firstgeneration'knowledgemanagementtiterature: the neglectof socio-cultural factors Storeyand Quintas suggestthat crucial to the successof knowledge managementinitiatives is that'employeesarewilling to sharetheir knowledgeand expertise'(2001, 359). Today,such a statement appearscommonsensical,a matter of stating the obvious. This is largely because such an assertioncan be backedby a wide range of suwey flndings (seeTable 1; Cranfleld BusinessSchool 1998; Hauschild et al.2001; Ribiere zo0r), and.casestudy evidenceon knowledge management initiatives (see, Empson 2001; Flood et al. 2001; Kim and Mauborgne1998;Morris 2001;Robertsonand o'Malley Hammersley2000).Theserepofts show that human, social,and cultural factors are $.pically key determinants of the success or failure of knowledgemanagementinitiatives, for example,with evidencesuggestingthat a reluctanceby workers to share,or even hoard their knowledge is not uncommon. However,the importance of such issueshas not alwaysbeen recognizedin the knowledgemanagementliterature.In much of the earliestwriting on knowledgemanagement, what Scarbroughand Carter(2000)referto asthe'first generation'literature(very approximately all knowledge management literature before 1998), socio-culturalfactors were not accordedthis level of importance.Thus before looking in detail at why human and social factors are so important it is worth briefly looking at this early literature to help in understandingthe assumptionsit wasbasedon and why'people, questionswereregarded as of secondaryimportance. A good insight into the characterand assumptionsof the earlyknowledgemanagement literaturecan be derivedfrom a surveyof it (Scarbroughet a\.1999;Scarbroughand Swan 2001)' Literatureup to and including 1998was included in the survey,and was classified accordingto its primary thematic interests(seeTable4.1).This showedthat almost 70 per cent of this literaturewas primarily focusedon IT or information-systems-related issues, and that only 5 per cent (one in twenty articles)had a thematic emphasison ,human resource'issues. Thus it is in no way inaccurateto suggestthat this earlyliteraturefocused primarily on technological issues, and neglected socio-cultural factors. The survey evidencereportedearlier(seeTable2) indicatesthat the earliestknowledgemanagement initiatives had a similar emphasis. T a b l e4 . 1 . T h e m a t i cf o c u so f e a r l yk n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n t literature(adaptedf rom Scarbroughand Swan 20U,fable 2, B) Thematic category

Number

%

InformationTechnology

73

40

Information Systems

51

28

StrategicManagement

35

19

HumanResource

9

5

Consultancies

B

4

Other

B

4

, W H Y S H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? '

were typically Thls literature, and the earliest knowledge management initiatives, rasedon a number of key assumptions: ' Peoplewill be willing to shareknowledge' . Knowledge is either codified, or is codifiable (tacit knowledge can be converted into an expiicit form). . Knowledge can be sharedvia IT systems. perspective on The resonance between these assumptions and the obiectivist of this early, maiodty vast the and apparent, be inowledge outlined in chapter 2 should As a perspective' ,T-basedliterature is fundamentally based on this epistemological was initiatives) (and KM .onsequenceof theseassumptionsthe emphasisof this literature to suppolt :,n setting up mechanisms and a relevant (technological) infrastructule diffusion' knowledge electronic and .nowledge management efforts of codification, could be or what ,luestions of whether people were willing to share their knowledge, assumptions tone to motivate them to do so, were by and large ignored. But these as a challenged widely been have and evidence empirical iave been undermined by :rrnselluence.

People'smotivation and willingnessto share knowledge questions' - he title of this section contains the seedsof two important and interrelated ."";hichover time gained greatel and greater prominence in the knowledge management -rlerature: -. \vhat is the role and significance of human motivation in knowledge-sharing processes? l. How willing are people to sharetheir knowledge? answel to the fiISt The growing critique of the flrst-generation literatule suggeststhat in knowledge-sharing llestion, human motivation is of fundamental importance to to sharetheir willingness people's question, second the to ::ocesses,and that in answer by lookunderstood be can conclusions i.rowledgeshould nofbe taken for granted.These in turn. -::g at three specific issues(seeTable4.2), each of which are examined

to important makinghumanmotivation Table4.2. Factors processes knowledge organizational Why human motivation and willingnessare important to knowledgemanagementand sharingprocesses natureof (much)knowledge Embodied/personal/tacit Natureof the employmentrelationship relations for)conflictin intra-organizational of (potential Embeddedness

E

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES The personal and embodied nature of knowledge The first factor which helps to explain why human agency and motivation is important to knowledge-sharingprocesses relatesto the characterof organizationalknowledge.As the previoustwo chaptershave examinedthis topic in detail,relevantissuescan be examined without having to restatea lot of detail.The characteristicsof knowledgeconsidered relevant here are drawn largely from the practice-basedperspective on knowledge (see Chapter 3). This is because,in general terms, the critique of the objectivist-orientated 'first generation'knowledgemanagementliteraturehasbeen made using insights derived from this perspective. Primarily much organizational knowledge, rather than being explicit in a disembodied form, is personal, tacit, and embodied in people. Thus, Kim and Mauborgne suggest, 'knowledgeis a resourcelocked in the human mind' (1998,323). As a consequence,the sharing and transmission of such knowiedge occursthrough interaction and communication between people. Thus, the sharing and communication of knowledge requires a willingnesson the part of those who have it to participatein such processes. Or, asFlood 'the (2001, et al. 1153) suggest, tacit knowledge. . . employeespossessmay be exploited only if theseworkersdecideto part with this knowledgeon a voluntary basis.' Furtheq challenging the tacit-explicit dichotomy of discreteknowledge tlpes aswell as acknowledging the socially and contextually embedded nature of knowledge, suggests there are limits to the extent to which knowledge can be made explicit. Thus no matter how willing workers may be to make their knowledge explicit, they will never be able to make explicit al1the assumptionsand values on which it is based(often becausethey may not even be aware of all of them). For example, an experiencedworker who has built up his knowledge over time will only be partly able to explicitly articulate his knowledge. Further, other workers attempting to fully understand this knowledge will tlpically require to directly communicate and interact with the experiencedworker to help understand aspectsof the knowledge that could not be made explicit. Finally, and crucially, the successof this processof knowledge-sharing,is dependent on the willingness of both workers making the effort to actively engagein this process. Thus, as much organizational knowledge is embodied and personal in nature, and where there are finite limits to the extent to which this knowledge can be codifled, the importance of the active agency of people in knowledge-sharing becomes apparent. However, the character of knowledge provides only part of the explanation why human and socialissuesare key to knowledgemanagementinitiatives. Two other issuesof equal impofiance are the nature of the employment relationship, and the natule of intraorganizational relations. Theseissueshelp to explain why Scarbroughand Carter (2000) suggestthat it is problematic to assumethat organizations represent a harmonious environment where people are willing and happy to sharetheir knowledge.

The nature of the employment relationship The quotations at the start of Chapter 1 (p.1) portray knowledge as an economic asset which is owned by organizations, and which they have the power to manage. However, the knowledge that workers have can also be conceptualized asbelonging to them rather

, W H YS H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? ' :ran the organization. From this perspective,while workers may apply, develop, and :se their knowledge towards the achievementof organizationally directed goalsand objec:tr-es,the knowledge is fundamentally the workers, to use as, when, where, how, and :f they want. This highlights the potential tension between workers and the organizations :hey work for over who owns and controls their knowledge, and points towards an ,mpoftant factor which may inhibit the willingnessof workersto sharetheir knowledge. Ihis tension is neatly summed up by Scarbrough,who suggeststhat,'knowing as afi :ctive, lived experienceis in a constant state of tension with knowledge as a commodity -.t-ithinfirms and markets'(-1.999,6, emphasisin original). Thus while the knowledge-relatedobjectives of the organization (to utilize and develop into an economic asset,and to extract economic value from it), and workers -<nowledge :o sustain,develop,use, and apply their knowledgeas appropdate,to derive a senseof :npoftance from their knowledge, and to have a knowledge basewhich enhancesor sus-ains their employability) may coincide, it is equally possible that they may not. Itierefore, from a managerialperspective,the willingnessof workersto use their knowl-dge for the achievementof organizationalobiectivesshould not be taken for granted. Suchtensionsare not new or novel. In fact they representone of the most fundamen:al conflicts affecting management-workerrelations.Thus, for example one of the fun:amental aims of Taylorism was to dispossesscraft workers of their knowledge, and =rnbodyit in a systemof explicit managerialprinciples (Jaffee2001).

Tensionsover the ownership of knowledge '.':rris (200'1 ) examined a knowledge codificationproject undertaken by a management -: rsultancy.He foundthe codificationprojectwas significantlydependenton the consultantstaking -- activeand willingpart in the codificationprocess.Morrissuggeststhat this projectrepresented 'property rights'over the knowledgeof its workers, to '- attempt by the companyto assert its =::ablisha sense of organizational ownershipover it. In this case the workers were willing to projectto havesig::ricipate in the project,but this was becausethey consideredthe codification - 'cant limitations.Ultimatelythe workers perceivedthat any attempt to codify their knowledge retain,'.:s likelyto be partialandthat they couldthus participate in the projectwhile simultaneously -; key aspectsof their knowledgethat sustainedtheir power and importancein the organization.

' :re workershadperceived to codifysignificant that it may havebeenpossiblefor the organization in the projecthave .- I importantelementsof theirknowledge,wouldtheirattitudeto participating :=en different?

The negative effect that conflict in the employment relationship may have on workers ,titudes to knowledge-relatedactivitiestakeson addedimportancewhen recentchanges t:r the nature of the emplo).rnent relationship are taken account of. Since approximately :re mid-1970sthere hasbeen a massiveupheavalboth in the structuringof organizations

L SUES A N D C U L T U R Ai S SOCIAL (withashiftawayfromhierarchical,bureaucraticstnrctureston'aldsmoreflexiblest-.u. tures)andinthenatureoftheemploymentrelationship.Ingeneraltermsrr-orkersar* requiredtobemoreflexibleinthehourstheyworkandtaskstheydo,whiiesimulta:reand with fewer internal promotion oppo|!..:i ou,ty emptoy*ent has become lessSecute, ities(the,NewDeal,Capellilggg)'somecommentatorsarguethatthishaswitnessedthe ,conttact culture, (Guest 1998), where workers have a limited levels oi con. rise of a m i t m e n t a n d l o y a l t y t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e y w o r k f o r ( s e e f o r e x a m p l e , Gpotenn'a: allieeti This thereforesuggeststhat the 2001; Scase2001; smithson u.rJ Lewis lggg).3 r'r-orkers and their employersover how the for conflict betweenthe objectivesof the workers knowledge is utlilized may be significant'

Arefactorssuchasjobsecurityandpromotionopportunities|ikelytoaffectaworkers|evelof to shareor codifytheirknowledge? commitment,or willingness organizational

for conflict lntra-organizationalrelations:the potential Whj}eissuesotpowetandconflictarelookedatmolefullyinChapterT,theyrequireto b e t o u c h e d o n h e r e , a s o n e w a y t h a t t h e y g e t ' p l a y e d o u t ' i s t h r o u g h a t t i t u dof estoknowlprimarily, the actual or perceived differences interest affa.f 2ftitlrdes to attitudesto mav affect in knowledgemanagementproiects ;.ffi.;,J;;;";;;;;r.ups ^.^d:^+ i . + 1 " o ff,nal rnel conflicris ttre 1"." nr""i"cts.Therefore,intergroup,or interpersona\ - l ^ - ^ L - n r m l o d o e ;::ffi#i" knowledge to explainwhy the wlringnessof workers share *"ri" i;.;;;il;"r.a "elps \ial\sps\bn\\ss\e\scsss\dq(\cknowledgetnanagementpfoiects'

"[];;;;;;'""0-."iro*tion.

of where organizational The contemporary knowledge literature is full of examples Hayesand walsham (2000) conflicts have affectedattitudesto knowledge-sharing.Both workersover the visibility of and ciborra and Patriotta (1998)illustratehow concelnsby affected their attitudes what they said and did in electronic knowledge exchange forums toparticipation.Further,Newelletal'(2000)andEmpson(2001)illustratedhowinterknowledge-sharing' group conflicts and rivalries created a reluctance for intergroup about ,giving away, conc€rns how Further,Willman et al. (2001)and Morris (2001)show projects'Suchacts, specialistknowledgeshapedattitudestowardsknowledgecodiflcation power, which are all the more as will be discussedin chapter 7, representexpressionsof significantiftheknowledgeinquestionisscarceorregardedasvaluable.

or Intergroup wheretherewas interpersonal' can you thinkof an examplef rom your own experience the basisof the was what knowledge? some of utilization and sharing conflictwlth regardsto the conflict? 3 There is an extensive debate in the human resource management literature over this topic, believe in high commitment particularly over questions such as the degreeto which managements olSanizations' for theil have wolkers that loyalty management practices,and the level of

, W H YS H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? ' :{ayes and Walsham (2000) also show how the 'politicality' of the social context (such :s :o whom knowledge/informationis visible, and real, potential, or perceivedsanctions :: - m knowledge-sharingbehaviours) can vary significantly and affect knowledge-sharing .=tudes and behaviours.They also acknowledgedthat the potential for surveillanceand :: rnitoring of such behaviours was greater in electronic forums, where a permanent '=cord of contributions and interactions was available.Theseissuesare discussedmore .;--r-in Chapters7 and 8. -hus the potentially conflictual nature of organizational life combined with the fact :-:t knowledgerepresentsan important power resourcemeansthat it may not necessar-'.-'oestraightforwardto get peopleto sharetheir knowledgewith colleagues.

What motivates peopleto share/hoardtheir knowledge? " :r previous section looked in detail at the question of u/h/ it is important to take account , : ruman attitudes to knowledge-sharing,which touched on how the social and cultural - :ltext in which knowledge management initiatives occur shapestheir dynamicS.This ::ds to questions of what specific aspectsof the social and cultural context influences :e.rple'sattitudesto knowledge-sharing.An enormousnumber of surveysand casestud.r of knowledge management initiatives have now been conducted, which have shed ,::t on this question.In broad terms a wide rangeof extremelydiversefactorshave been -:':nd to be relevant (Table 4.3). The managerial implications from these insights, r,ir-ussedmore fully in the following five chapters, are as profound as they are straight-:rrard: the successof knowledge management initiatives is crucially affectedby the ,,.--:aland cultural context, and as a consequencethese issuesrequire to be properly :::ounted for in the planning and implementation of knowledge managementinitiat::s. Ignoring them thus has potentially negative implications for the likely successof .::r-initiative, as countlessanalysesillustrate (seeTable4.3). The rest of this sectionpro-.:es a brief overview of how each of these factors can affect knowledge-sharing attitudes behaviours,and points towardssubsequentchapterswhere theseissuesareexamined ":-d :":,re fully. . ilrrter-groupand inter-personalconflict -.' ,tutlined above, the potential for conflicting interests in organizations is an important -::tor that can significantly influence the attitudes of workersto sharetheir knowledge. :-r importance of knowledge as a signiflcant power resourceamplifies the potential for - - rflict that exists (Storey and Barnett 2000). Such conflicts can be over a wide range of ':ues (historical antagonisms and rivalries, concerns over reward and recognition, ::rmotion opportunities, disputesover the legitimacy of knowledge claims, concerns -.'tr changes in status, and attempts to control knowledge management initiatives). processes -::e dynamicsof intra- and inter-group-knowledge-sharing are examinedmore -:-lv in Chapters 5 and 6, while issuesof power, politics, and conflict are examined in -laDter 7.

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S Table 4.3. Factorsaffectingpeople'swillingnessto share knowledge Factors affecting people's willingness to share knowledge

Casestudy examples

Intergroup/Personal Conflict

De Long& Fahey2000;Empson200'l; Newellet al.2000;Storey& Barnett2000; Ward 2O0O

Concernsoverwhetherstatus/expertise affected

Morris2001;Willmane7al.2001;Andrews& Delahaye 2001

Senseof equity/fairness in organizational processes

K i m& M a u b o r g n1e9 9 8

Interpersonal trust

Andrews& Delahaye 2001;Monis & Empson 1998; Roberts2000

Organizational commitment?

Storey& Ouintas2001;Guest& Patch2000; Byrne2001

Generalorganizational culture

De Long& Fahey2000;McDermott& O'Dell2001; Pan& Scarbrough 1999; Ribiere200i; Robertson & O'MalleyHammersley 2000;Robertson & Swan2003

(reward/recognition) HRM Practices

B e a u m o n&t H u n t e r2 0 0 2 ;H a n s e ne t a l .1 9 9 9 ; Hunteret al.2002;Jarvenpaa & Staples2000; Robertson & O'MalleyHammersley 2000;Swart& Kinnie2003

Visibility of knowledge, attitudes,andvalues to seniorlevelof organizational hierarchy

Ciborraand Patriotta1998;Hayes& Walsham2000

Empson (2001) provides a vivid example of such a conflict, and how it impacted on knowledge-sharing processes.She studied attempts to integrate the knowledge basesof companies following mergers and acquisitions (in accounting and consultancy companies). This study found wide-ranging resistanceto the knowledge sharing/integration processbetween staff from the consulting companiesbeing merged,basedon perceived differences in the quality and character of their knowledge bases(such as the degreeof tacitness),conflicting images of the companiesbeing merged/ and fears related to the potential negativeconsequences from participating in the process.

Equity and fairness Kim and Mauborgne(1998),basedon a study of seniormanagersfrom a small number of case-studyorganizations, suggestthat the willingness of workers to sharetheir knowledge can be related to whether they perceiveda senseof'proceduraljustice'to exist in their organization. Procedural justice representsthe extent to which organizational decisionmaking processesare fair, with fairnessbeing related to how much people are involved in decision-making, the clarity of communication regarding why decisionsare made, aswell as a clarity of expectations.They suggestthat when all these factors are in place workers

,WHY S H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? '

r

--l feelvaluedfor their intellectualcapabilitiesand skills.Kim and Mauborgnearguethat ---iking workers feel valued can impact on attitudes towards knowledge-sharing,'when - ::r' felt that their ideas and person were recognized through fair process,they were -,ling to sharetheir knowledge and give their all' (1998,332). Conversely,they argue -"-;t rvhen workers do not believe proceduraljustice exists,workers are likely to hoard '--=trknowledge,and be lesswilling to participate in team-basedcooperativework. This ;dv suggeststhat organizationscan significantly influence such attitudes through the ,r' they manage their decision-makingprocesses.The way in which organizational , --ture, and the useof specifichuman resourcemanagementpoliciescan affect attitudes ' *nowledge-sharingare exploredin Chapter 9.

- -. 'evelof equitydo workers expectf rom the organizations they work in?Forexample,with : l:-ls to involvement in decision-making, what type of decisions, andwhat levelsof involvement do - ' . : ' s r e q a r da s f a i r ?

nterpersonaltrust .-.re is currently an enormousinterest,and quantity of writing on the topic trust, with -- :;h of the contemporary literature considering how trust underpins effective group :king, and interpersonal interaction (Jarvenpaaand Leidner 1999; Maznevski and :-;doba 2000; Meyersonet al. 1996;Nandhakumar 1999;Newell and Swan 2000).The --cial role of trust in facilitating knowledge-relatedprocesses is also being recognized .-:rdrewsand Delahaye20Ol;Davenportand Prusak1998;Mclnerney and LeFevre2000; : rerts 2000).Fundamentally,a lack of trust betweenindividuals is likely to inhibit the : , :int to which people arewilling to shareknowledgewith each other. This is becausea ::i of trust createsuncertainty and risk (or the perceptionof a risk) that all partiesmay - : participate, or beneflt equally, and that due to opportunistic behaviour, someonemay i= out from sharingtheir knowledge(for example,by getting nothing in return). l-.r example, Andrews and Delahaye (2000) in a study of attitudes to knowledge'..ing by scientistsfound that perceptions of trustworthinesswere crucially important '. 'raplng who the scientistsexaminedwerewilling to sharetheir knowledgewith. They : '.jde a quotation from one of their intervieweeswho illustratedthis by saying, ' , r haven'tgottrustandconfidence thenit doesn'tmatterwhatelseyou'veput in place,or what " ::.:: strucfures you put in placeto try andencourage cooperation, it'snot goingto happen'(804).

!,'l E-: -

r.u.,

-s:referstothebeliefpeoplehaveaboutthelikelybehaviourofothers,andtheassumptionthatthey ^cnour (notacting theirobligations opportunistically). A trusting relationship isbased onan *:;ctation ofreciprocity ormutual benefit.

SSUES A N D C U L T U R AI L SOCIAL The issue of trust highlights how the character of interpersonal relations crucially affects knowledge-sharing attitudes and behaviours. From a managerial point of view, sensitivity to the character of existing social relations, combined with attempting to facilitate trust-based relations may have a crucial impact on knowledge management initiatives. Finally, an issue explored further in Chapter 8 is how social relations and the development and maintenance of trust are affected when they are electronically mediated, through information and communication technologies.

Levelof organizationalcommitment A number of articles suggestthat the level of commitment workers feel for the organizations they work in may affect both their knowledge sharing attitudes and behaviours as well astheir level of loyalty (Byrne 2001; Guest and Patch 2000; Storeyand Quintas 2001; Scarbrough and Carter 2000). While there is some empirical evidence that shows that loyatty levels are affected by organizational commitment (Buck and Watson 2O02;Chen and Francesco2000; Sturgesand Guest2001),there is no empiricalevidencewhich shows how knowledge-sharingattitudes and behavioursare connectedto commitment levels. Thus, the relationship between knowledge-sharing attitudes and organizational commitment is, at this point in time, somewhattheoreticaland tentative. Organizational commitment also connects with the issue trust. The degree to which the trust placed in organizationsby their workersis fulfilled representsone of the main factors underpinning their level of organizationai commitment (Guest and Conway 1999)The topic of organizationalcommitment will be revisitedin Chapter9, whereit will be seen that developing commitment can be seen as part of an organization's knowledge management strategy as it can prevent the loss of valuable knowledge through increasingstaff retention levels.

theyworkfor,whichmaybe feeltotheorganizations thatpeople attachment ofemotional Thesense goals. andcommon invaluealignment reflected

Human resourcemanagementand culture managementpractices An extensive amount of the knowledge management literature has shown how the culture of an organization, as well as the human resourcemanagement practices it utilizes (such as systemsof pay and recognition, training, character of working conditions) can crucially impact on knowledge management initiatives (Hansen et aI. 1999; Hislop 1999; Hunter and Beaumont2OO2;McDermott and O'Dell 2001; Pan and Scarbrough1999; Robertson and O'Malley Hammersley 2000). Two impacts these factors have is that not only can they affect the attitudes and behaviour of workers to knowledge management initiatives, but they can also affect staff retention levels.Theseissuesare illustrated in the example below and are examined more fully in Chapter 9'

,WHY

S H O U L DI S H A R E I \ 4 YK N O W L E D G E ? '

The role of culture management and HRM policies in facilitating knowledge-sharing : : c e r t s o na n dO ' M a l l eH y a m m e r s l e( 2y 0 0 0c)o n s i d e r ehdo wt h eH R Ma n dc u l t u r e management : - ' : t i c e so f E x p e rC t o n s u l t i nags, p e c i a l i U s tKc o n s u l t i ncgo m p a n ys,h a p e tdh ea t t i t u d eosf t h e i r - : ^ s u l t a n ttso s h a r et h e i rk n o w l e d g T e .h es t u d yf o u n dt h a tE x p e rCt o n s u l t i nugs e da w i d er a n g e - ' - l R M p r a c t i c etso a c h i e v et h i s ,i n c l u d i nrge c r u i t m e natn d s e l e c t i o (nw h e r ew o r k e r sw e r e - - : s e n f o r h o ww e l lt h e yf i t t e dw i t h t h e k n o w l e d g e - s h a rciunlgt u r e t)r; a i n i nagn dd e v e l o p m e n t ',^ereworkershada lot of autonomyto decideon theirown training anddevelopment require-:'rts); autonomyover how they lob design(wherethe workerswere grantedsignificant : - k e d )a; n dt h e d e v e l o p m e o n ft a c u l t u r eo f i n f o r m a l i a t yn do p e n n e stso k n o w l e d g e - s h a r i n g . --: s t u d yc o n c l u d et d h a tE x p e rC t o n s u l t i nwga ss u c c e s s f iunl i t se n d e a v o u rwsh, i c hw a sv i s i b l e -':n thefactthatnotonlywereitsworkers willingto proactively sharetheirknowledge, butthat ' e t e n t i o n :: r a t e sw e r es i g n i fc a n t l hy i g h etrh a nt h e i n d u s t rayv e r a g e .

Concernsover the visibility of interactions ---rthHayesand Walsham (2000)and Ciborra and Patriotta (1998)showedhow concern :"' rvotkersover the visibility of their opinions to senior management inhibited their rrrticipation in electronicknowledgeexchangeforums. Theseconcernswere related to -tiv this information/knowledge might be used,or interpretedby senior managers.For =rample,ciborra and Patriotta (1998,50) showedthat in one of the groupwaresystems .:ev studied contribution levels changed dramatically following comments put on the :-.'stemby a 'very senior manager'.Their research showed that '[t]his ,intrusion,.. . ::ovoked a panic reaction amongst employeesand contributed to a freezein the use of ::e systemfor some months.' Primarily in both studies,workers were loath to express :inions which might be seenasnot complying with managerialperspectivesin forums r';hich were transparentand widely used.This theme connectscloselywith the issueof - tn-er,which is exploredmore fully in Chapter 7.

-: 'v typicalarethe f indingsof HayesandWalsham,and Ciborraand Patrlotta? lf workersareawaTe --i: theirknowledgeandvalues will be visibleto seniormanagement, arethey likelyto censor,or * : Cifyhow they act,andwhat they say?

Concernsabout power/status/expertise - he flnal issueconsideredin this chapter which has been found to influence people's -.nowledge-sharing attitudesand behaviouris the extent to which people'spower, status, :nd expertise is affected, or the extent to which they perceiveit will be affected, by tarticipating in knowledge-sharingprocesses. Theseperceptionsand concernscan have

SOCIAL A N DC U L T U R AI LS S U E S positive or negative effects on knowledge-sharing behaviour, dependent upon how workers perceivetheir power, status, and expertisewill be affected. On the positive side, the Morris example outlined earlier in the chapter (seep. 47) showed how consultants had a positive attitude to an organizational knowledge codification project, as they perceivedthat participating in the project would not jeopardizecrucial elementsof their specialist knowledge and expertise, and the status and power which they derived from having it. willman et al. (2001) outline a more negative example, where traders in London's financial markets occasionally refrained from codifying elements of their tacit knowledge, due to the financial benefits, and statusthey believed they could derive from personally retaining, or 'hoarding' it. This issue connects closely to the topic of trust discussedabove, as the degreeof trust people have in their colleaguesand employers will affect the risks and rewards they perceive to exist from participating in knowledge managementinitiatives. Theseanxieties highlight a dilemma for workers related to participating in knowledge management initiatives: whether to shareor hoard knowledge. Sharingknowledge has the potential benefits of improving a person's status as well as creating opportunities for the development of new knowledge, but has the risk that it involves workers ,giving away, the sourceof their expertise,status, and power. However, the opposite strategy of hoarding has its own risks and advantages.The advantageof hoarding is that it may protect an individual's expertise,but runs the risk of the importance of their knowledge not being recognizedand rewarded.Theseissueswill be exploredmore fullv in chaoter 7.

Conclusion The chapter has outlined the limitations of the first-generation knowledge management literature, which so conspicuously played down socio-cultural issues.The critique of this perspective has revealed the substantial limitations of much of this earlv literature, and has shown that: 1. Human, social, and cultural factors are fundamental to understanding both the attitudes of workers to knowledge management initiatives and the dynamics of knowledgemanagementprocesses. 2' It is problematic to assume that people will be willing to actively participate in knowledge management initiatives. Theseconclusions stem from three factors. Firstly, that much organizational knowledge is personal and embodied,requiring the willingness of its possessorfor it to be shared, codified, etc. Secondly,the nature of the employment relationship means that in relation to knowledge management initiatives the interests of workers, and their employers may not alwaysbe compatible. Finally, the typically conflictual nature of intra-organizational relations means that control over knowledge and knowledge management initiatives in organizations are likely to be contested. The chapter also illustrated the wide range of specific factors which can influence people'swillingness to share knowledge.

,WHY S H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? ' Finally,the most important managerialimplication flowing from the issues addressed -:: this chapterare that attention requiresto be paid to the characterof the socio-cultural : --'ntext,and that a lack of sensitivity to it is likely to jeopardizethe success of any knowl. :re managementinitiative.

nrvrew-rau.s$i$:g$1ffi,",r, +i!fi,rffr:iiuiltti.iiil I

3ased on your own experience,what has been the attitudesof work colleagues to shalng :^eir knowledge?Haveyou found them to be willingto share,or has hoarding been more :,'oical?what are the most importantfactorswhich explainthis behaviour?

2 -ow compatiblehaveyour and your employingorganlzation's interestsbeen with regardto -ow you have used your knowledge?Havethe organization,s goalsand your own always :een harmonious,or havethere been any conflictand tensionsover how vou use vour
-ave you found trust to be an importantfactor underpinningatt;tudesto knowledge-sharing? -ave you had any experiences where a Iackof trust has lnhibitedknowledge-sharing, or ,',,here the existenceof trust has facilitatedit?

rur t r r*:R$4jqJ$ilfii;,1ij: '

- Storey,and E. Barnett(2000).'KnowledgeManagementInitiatives: Learning from Failure,, - ournalof Knowledge Management,412:14b_56. Sasestudy of a failed knowtedge managementinitiative, which reveals theinternat potitics and :cnflrcts that can affect knowledge managementinitiatives.

n - Scarbroush (1999).'Knowledgeas Work:Conflictsin the Management of Knowtedge workers,, =:hnologyAnolysis ond Strategic Manogement, 11lj:5_16. icnsiders the r'ssuesand dilemmas involvedin organEatrcnsattempting to motivate knowledge .','orkersto share their knowledge o - Hunter,P Beaumont,and M. Lee (2002).'Knowledge Managementpracticein ScottishLaw = rms' HumonResource j212.4_21. , MancsgementJournol, )'esents case study evidence of the type of knowtedge management strategiesutitizedby some Scottish Law firms, and considersthe impricationsfor the HRM function. r - Empson(2001).'Fearof Exploitation and Fearof Contamination: lmpediments to Knowledge -'ansfer in Mergersbetweenprofessional ServiceFirms,,HumanRelotions,5417:83g_62. )etailed case study examiningreluctanceof workers to share knowledge with new correagues 'cllowing a merger.

E

Communities ofpractice Introduction In the vast literature on knowledgemanagementthat has been produced,the concept of 'communities of practice'has been one of the most popular. Thus Edwardset al. (2003), in a survey of KM academicsand practitioners, found that they representedthe second most important concept developed in this literature. Unsurprisingly, therefore, an enormous number of articles have used it to understand the dynamics of organizational knowledgeprocesses(for example, Baumard 1999; Brorrmand Duguid 2001; DeFillippi and Arthur 1998; Pan and Scarbrough 1999). More prescriptively, a growing number of rvriters suSSestthat developing communities of practice can be key to the successof knowledge management initiatives (for example Bate and Roberts 2oo2; wafi. z0oo: \Venger1998;Wengeret al.2OO2). Communities of practice are informal groups of people who have some work-related activity in common. As will be seen,the communities of practiceliteratureis most closely associatedwith the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge, as it assumesthat the knowledgepeople have is embeddedin, and inseparablefrom, the (collectivelybased) activities that people carry out. The informality of these communities stemsfrom the fact that they emergefrom the socialinteractionsthat are a necessarypart of the work activities that people undertake.Further,while most of the literature on communities of practice iocuseson organizationally speciflc communities, communities can span organizational boundaries(Brown and Duguid 2001).For example,Gittelman and Kogut (2003)analyse the researchersinvolved in the Unites States'biotechnology industry as constituting a community of practice. While communities of practicemay appearto be a totally new concept,discoveredand developedwithin the knowledge management literature, this is not the case.For example, in the areaof industrial sociologythere has been an interestin the closelyrelated concept of 'occupational communities', which significantly predatesthe emergenceof knowledgemanagement(SalamanI974; van Maanen and Barley 1984).The invisibility of this literature stems from the fact that almost without exception it is ignored by knowledgemanagementwriters. This chapter has a very specificfocus, discussingand analysing the intemal dynamicsof communities of practice. The character and d1'namics of inter-community knowledge processes are exploredin Chapter 6. Chapters5 and 6 can thereforecan be read together,

E

SOCIAL A N DC U L T U R AI L SSUES as they both examine the dynamics of group-basedknowledgeprocesses. The reasonfor doing this in two rather than one chapter is that, as will be discussedmore fully in chapter 6, the character and dynamics of intra- and inter-community knowledge processes arequalitativelydifferent.Further,the dynamicsof knowledgeprocesses within 'virtual' communities are discussedin Chapters8 and 12.

Definingand characterizingcommunities of practice Communities of practice are groups of individuals and workersawho have some form of practice in common, for example, an informal group of IT staff within an organization which has responsibility for designing and maintaining similar IT systems. These groups are typically informal, and ad hoc in nature, developing out of the communication and interaction which is a necessarypart of most work activities.Unlike formalized workgroups,and teams,they do not representa part of the formal organizational structure and therefore typically do not appear on organization charts (see Table5.1).

Table5.1. Difference betweena CoPandformalworkgroups Community of practice

Organizational work groupor team

Objective

Evolving Shapedby commonvalues lnternally negotiated

Clear,formallydefined Externally determined

Focusof efforts

CollectivepracLice/klowledge Providespecificserviceand/orproduct

Membership

Voluntary

Typically formalized anddelegated (thoughoccasionally voluntary)

Government of Internalstructure

Consensually negotiated Non-hierarchical

Formalized divisionof labour Hierarchical structure Individualized roles& responsibilities

Externalsystemof Self-managing Formalized relations definedby management & control I n f o r m a itn, L e r p e r s o nr ealla t i o n s organizational hierarchy Performance monitoringagainst cnoeifin

Timeframe

Indefinite,rnternally negotiated

+rr^a+c

n^.lc

Permanent, or with finite jective time-frame/ob

a Communities of practice do not exist solely within businessorganizations. For example, one of the examplesof a community provided by Lave and Wenger (1991) was of non-drinking, recovering alcoholics. However,in this chapter,the focus is narrowly on communities of Dracticewithin a workplacecontext.

C O I V M U N I T I EO SF PRACTICE

Gas applianceserviceengineers:a community of practice - Gas-co,the UK's largestgas supplyand servicecompany, serviceengineersare home-based ,vorkers,who have no formal office space.The trainingof new engineersoccursthroughattend:nce at a numberof formal,classroom-based trainingcourses,as well as more informally,through 'buddy ; system'. The buddy system operates for 26 weeks, and involves new engineers ."orkingalong beside experiencedengineers,and constitutesa form of on-the-jobtraining.The ^dividualized natureof the work, combinedwith the lackof an off ice basemakescommunication :rd interactionbetween engineersdifficult.However,a strong sense of group identityis main-:inedthroughregularphone contactswith colleagues,and frequentformal and informalface{o'ace group meetings.For example,if engineersf ind situationswhere they are unsurewhat to do, :,picallythey phone up colleagues.Further,to ensure regularface-to-facecontact many engi-eers arrangeto go to the parts depot simultaneously, and use this opportunityto have coffee .',,theach other,socialize,and sharestoriesregardingtheir work.

I venthe individualized natureof the work,andthe informalnatureof muchof the interpersonal ^:eractions, is therea riskthatparticularly shy people,or peoplewho arenot likedby theircolleagues ,",I not be f ullyintegrated intothe community, and may not benefit f romthe knowledge andinformation -.^ared by others?ls thisa potential negative sideof allcommunities, wheremembership is affectedby ::'sonality+elated factors,whichcanleadto exclusion or the weak inteqration of somepeople?

Such groups have traditionally been treated with hostility by senior management, who nay be concerned about how these groups may undermine formal structuresand systems Brown and Duguid 1991,).However,more and more, as part of knowledgemanagement -nitiatives/organizationsare attempting to deliberatelysupport and develop commun,ties of practice due to their perceivedbenefits in relation to knowledge processes(see :elow). By their very nature, howevet, communities of practice arenot easily amenableto leliberate managementand control. The contradictionsof attempting to formalize such -nherentlyinformal interactionsarenot insignificant, and will be discussedlater.

Be

community ofpractice

,l groupof peoplewho havea particular activityin common, andas a consequence havesomecommon , rowledge,a senseof community identity, andsomeelementof overlapping values

Premisses ,lte community of practice concept is basedon tvvo central premisses:the practice-based -rspective on knowledge,and the group based-character of organizationalactivity. The prirary relevanceof the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge stemsfrom the assumption

E

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES in the communities of practice literature that knowing and doing are inseparable,as undertaking speciflctasksrequiresthe useand development of embodied knowledge.Thus, Broum and Duguid (199I, 43) arguethat 'learning-in-working is an occupational necessity' and that carrying out work activities also involves the 'situated production of understanding' (199I,44).s The second major premiss is that organizational activities are tlpically collective, involving the coordinatedinteraction of groupsof workers(seefor example,Barnes1,977; Brown and Duguid 1998;Gherardiet al. 1998;McDermott 1999).Thus, one common feature of virtually every type of work imaginable, from office cleaning to management consulting, is that they involve an element of coordination and interaction with co-workers, subordinatesand/or supervisors. Therefore,while the knowledge that membersof a community of practice have and develop is highly personal, there is an extent to which much of this knowledge is simultaneously sharedwithin a community. From an objectivist perspectiveon knowledge, the common knowledge sharedby the workers in a community of practice is collective/group knowledge(with both tacit and explicit elements-seeTable2.4). Lave and Wenger (1991), who are typically acknowledgedas being instrumental in the development and elaboration of the community of practice concept, define them as a community of practitioners within which situational learning develops,which results in the community developing, 'a set of relations among persons,activity and the world, (98).Extrapolatingfrom this definition communities of practicecan be seento have three deflning characteristics,all of which flow from the community members' involvement in some shared activities (Table 5.2). Firstly, participants in a community possessand develop a stock of common, shared knowledge. Secondly,communities tlpically also developsharedvaluesand attitudes,a common 'world-view'. Boland and Tenkasi(1995) referredto the processof developing and communicating such views, 'perspectivemaking' (seeChapter 3). Finally,and equally importantly, membersof communities alsopossessa senseof communal identity (Brown and Duguid 2001). These elements of a community develop not only through the physical activities involved in collectively carrying out the communities tasks,but also through language and communication. Thus, for example,stories,or specialistjargon can be regardedasa part of the collectiveknowledge of the group, whose use by group members contributes to their senseof collective identity and sharedvalues. Table5.2. Genericcharacteristics of communitles of practice Characteristicsof CoPs 1. Bodyof commonknowledge/practice 2. Senseof sharedidentity 3. Somecommonor overlapping values

s Brown and Duguid take this quotation from Orr (1990).

C O M M U N I T I EOSF P R A C T I C E .\ useful way to illustrate these characteristics is through an example. Trowler and :mer (2002)illustratehow the Deaf Studiesgroup of an EnglishUniversity constitutesa - rmmunity of practice.This group consistsof three hearing academics(who arefluent in ,.1n ianguage)and three deaf academics.The sharedpracticeof this community consti.:tes both the teaching of the Deaf Studiescurriculum, aswell as researchconductedby ::e group on a range of issuesaffecting deaf people. This group has a strong senseof : tllective identity, as well as a belief in a common goal (contributing to the education - deaf people and their integration in society,raising awarenessof the social issues ':fecting deaf people, and furthering knowledge on the issueswhich affect deaf people :::rough carrying out research).While the group communicates both internally and :\temally in both sign languageand English, the sharedlanguageof the group is arguably ,:in language. The study also showed how the use of English language, and the :rglish languageprotocolsembeddedin certain formal meetingsand group forums, rep::senteda form of power that significantly disadvantagedthe deafmembersof the work.::g group.

--: you or haveyou everbeena memberof a communityof practice? What role,if any,did language - .:e form of specialist jargonand sharedstoriesplayin the development and reinforcement of the . : rmunity?

Communities of practice are highly dynamic, evolving as new members become 'rsorbed into a community, as existing membersleave,and as the knowledgeand prac:ces of the community evolveswith changing circumstances.Learning and knowledge :';olution are thereforeinherent and fundamental aspectsof the dynamics of commun.:es of practice,which helpsexplain why one of the main contextsin which the commun::1' of practice concept originated and developed was in the organizational learning -.:erature. Laveand Wenger (1991)used the term 'legitimate peripheralparticipation' to charac:erizethe processby which peoplelearn and becomesocializedinto being a member of a ,ommunity. This processis basedon 'triadic' group relations involving masters(or 'old -:mers'),young masters(or'journeymen'), and apprentices(or'newcomers').Apprentices .earn from watching and communicating with the master and other members of the rommunity, and start asperipheralmembers,participating initially in relativelystraight:orwardtasks.However,over time, asthe apprenticesbecomecompetentwith thesebasic >kills,they gradually become introduced to more complex tasks.Legitimate peripheral :articipation is thus the processby which newcomersto a community acquirethe know-edgerequiredto be a community member,through graduallyincreasinglevelsof particip"itiln rn community activities,during which time they simultaneouslymove from being :eripheralmembersof the community to becomemore central andlegitimatemembersof ::. Informal learning from other group membersis a key element of this process,or as Trowlerand Turner (2002,242)suggest,'learning to becomean organizationalmember is :ar more a question of socializationthan of formal learning.'

r

g

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Legitimate peripheral participation: naval quaftermasters Hutchins('1993) describesthe processof learningand socialization that apprenticenavalquarter(this masters undergo study is also describedand analysedby Fox 2000).Navalquartermasters a r e r e s p o n s i b l feo r m a i n t a i n i n ag c o n t i n u o u sl o g o f a s h i p ' sp o s i t i o nW . hilemuchof thiswork is relativelysolitary,key aspects (suchas enteringand leavingport) requirea team of quartermasters to work together.Learningto be a quartermastertypicallytakesaboutone year.The preferred way that establishedquartermasterslike to train new ones is through on the job learning.Over the year that it takes to learnto be a quartermaster, newcomersbegin by doing relativelyroutine and straightforwardtasks (such as taking bearings).Once such skills have been mastered, apprenticesgraduallybecome allowedto do more complextasks,such as integratingall the different readingstogether,and interpretingthe information.By the end of the year they will have become more central,experienced,and establishedmembers of their community,and will be in a positionto trainother new apprentices.

What is the potentialfor conflictbetweenthe established quartermasters andthe apprentices? ls it possiblethat the established quartermasters mayfeel resentfultowardsandthreatenedby the apprentices, whom they may regardas providing a potentialchallenge to theirstatusandauthority? Further, cansuchtensionsbe manaqedand minimized2

Communitiesof practiceand the organizationalknowledgebase The communities of practiceliterature,building from insights developedusing the practicebasedperspectiveon knowledge (seeChapter 3), suggeststhat the knowledge base of organizations can be conceptualizedas a 'community-of-communities' (Brown and Duguid l99l), or more poetically, a'constellation of communities' (Gherardi and Nicolini 2002;Ward 2001).Thus, rather than the organizationalknowledgebasebeing a coherent and unitary body of knowledge,it can more accuratelybe conceptualizedas fragmented,being constituted by a diverserange of localizedbodies of specialistknowledgepossessed by specificcommunities.While the knowledgebaseof thesecommunities is overlapping and interdependent, with an element of common knowledge existing (Kogut and Zander 1992),much of the knowledgecontainedwithin theseorganizational communities is localizedand specializedin nature, having limited relevancebeyond its specificcontext of application. However,the characterand structureof organizationalknowledgebasesvariessignificantly betweenorganizations(seefor exampleEmpson 20Ol; Lam 1997).This is because, as Brown and Duguid suggest(1998,98),'the distribution of knowledgein an organization . . . as a whole, reflectsthe social division of labour.' Thus the way in which work activities are structured within organizations will affect the character of the organizational knowledgebase.For example,comparethe caseof the pension company described immediately below, where businessunits are structured by product, to the example

C O M M U N I T I EOSF P R A C T I C E describedin chapter 3 (seep. 35-6) where businessunits were structured into geographic regions' while the knowledge base in both casesis fragmented, the characterof the \nowledge basesreflects the different ways in which work is structured.

Communities of practice and the l r s i n e s si n U K - p e n s i oonn, eo f t h e -::::":ll::::::T::Y"^11_o:ind -ese

structuring of work

U K ' sr a r g e satn dm o s tr e c o g n i z i bpreen s i o n s c o m p a n r ehsa d th:ir two mainproducrareas,pensions and rireassurance

djvisionswere run as separate businesses,with thejr own, distinct rranagement struc:-res, staff, businessprocesses, rrsystems, and customerbases. Further,there had historicary :een little interactionbetween them communicationonly occurred within the divisions,and -:ver between them This resultedin the developmentof two separate and specralizedknowlwhich onty had knowtedseof therr own customers,tT systems,and workins :;1:::lrr.ities,

one illustration of the extentof this was in the fact that therewas no sharingof customer -'ormation Neitherdivision hadanystraightforward wayof findingoutwhetheranyof their cus:lrers hadbusiness in the otherdivision, andit was impossibre for customers wrth products in ::th divisions to get a single,summarized statementof theirtotarportforio. -:my of Further, the autothesedivisions was suchthattheevolution anddeveropment of theirworkingpractices, --eupgradrng o f t h e i rl T

';ffi :nsForexa mo, n :l;I;lil ;.lT i lff .',;i:i', :1.1, ilfl ", ".. il:il:i::::**; :-em Thesesystemsandworkingprocedures ""#thatadministrative were so different staffin the

::lsrons divisionwouldnot havebeen ableto usethe rr systemsin the rite assurance divisjon .',:houtsubstantial trainrng, andvtceversa. chapters r2-'l'4 examine the character of the knowledge basein three generic organ_ -zational contexts (virtual organizations, global multinationals, and knowledge-intensive rrganizations),which consider how these affect and are affected by organizational iaowledge managementinitiatives.

Communitiesof practiceand intra-community knowledge processes \lmost universally'the communities of practiceliteratureconsiderscommunities of prac.ice to be advantageousfor both individuars and organizations. Thus they provide workcrs with a senseof collective identity, and a social context in which they can etfectively Jevelopand utilize theirknowledgeFor organizations,they can provide a vitar sourceof :nnovation. The knowledgemanagement literature,which has utilized the communities -rf practice concept, strongly argues that they can facilitate organizational knowledge Drocesses (Table5'3)' The rest of this section considersthe potential benefits in terms of inowledge processes that communities of practicecan provide.

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S Table 5.3. Knowledge-related benefitsof Cops Benefits of CoPs in terms of organizational knowledge processes

Case study examples

Underpinorganizational innovativeness (throughthe creation, development and application of knowledge)

Amidon1998;Brown& Duguid1991; Dougherty 2001; Liedtka1999;Mitsuru1999;Wenger1998; Wenger& Snyder2000

Facilitate knowledge-sharing andsupport a n de n c o u r a gien d i v i d u a n l dg r o u pl e a r n i n g

Bate& Roberts2002;Brown& Duguid1998; DeFillippi & Arthur1998;Gittelman& Kogut2003; Hildrethet al 2000;lles 1994;Lave& Wenger1991; '1 McDermott 999;Raelin1997;Ward2000

In terms of knowledge processes,communities of practice have the potential to provide benefits in two broad areas.Firstly, communities of practice can underpin levels of organizational innovativenessthrough supporting and encouragingthe creation, development, and use of knowledge. Thus, orr (1990) showed how the community of practice that existed amongst Xerox's photocopy repair engineersallowed these workers to develop their knowledge and understanding through solving problems that could not be correctedby simply following the knowledgeencodedin instruction manuals.Secondly,the common knowledgepossessed by membersof a community of practice/combined with their senseof collectiveidentity, and systemof sharedvaluesmeansthey have the potential to facilitate individual and group learning, and the sharing of knowledge within the community.

Knowledge-sharingwithin a community of practice Hildrethet al. (2000)examinedan internationally distributedcommunityof practicewithin the lT supportfunctionof the researchdepartmentin a 'major international company'.The group of lT supportmanagersstudied,while beinginternationally distributed(primarilyin the UK,andthe USA), had a common sense of purpose,a sharedsense of identity,and its own specialistlanguageand terminology.While the main form of interactionbetween groupmembers in the UK and American siteswas throughe-mail,voice mail,and a telephone-based videolink,the twice yearlyface-to-face meetingsthe group had also playeda key role.Theseface-to-face meetings,much more than the electronically mediatedinteractions, helpedin the developmentof a sense of communityidentity and strengthenedthe interpersonal relationsbetween communitymembers.Duringthe research undertaken,the groupwere observed,while workingon a collaborative task,the developmentof a common planningdocument.This task, which involvedcommunicationand interactionbetween staff in the UK and the USA, was made possibleby the sharedsense of identityand common knowledgethat these workers had. Further,the processof producingthe documentitselfhelped sustainand reinforcethe senseof communitythat existedbetween these workers.

C O M M U N I T I E SO F P R A C T I C E

F i g .5 . 1 . H o w c o m m u n i t i e so f p r a c t i c eu n d e r p i n k n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e s

-: .v importantis face-to-face contactin helpingto sustaincommunities of practice? ls it possiblefor - - ^-munitiesto developandsurvivewithoutanyface-to-face contactat all betweenmembers?

The advantagesof communities of practicein enabling such knowledgeprocessesare -,lsely relatedto the elementsthat membersof a community share.As outlined earlier, :-.embersof a community of practice,not only have a stock of common knowledge,but .->ohave a sharedsenseof identity, and some overlapping,common values.The simul.;leous existenceof these elementsenablesknowledge processes,as they simplify the - ,mmunication of knowledgethat is inherently sticky: tacit knowledge.This is for two :.lsons. Firstly,the existenceof these three elementsmake appreciatingthe taken-for.:3nted assumptions,and valueswhich underpin tacit knowledge easierto understand. : =condly,the existenceof theseelementsis likely to produceand sustaintrust-basedrela:,.'ns,creatingsocialconditions that areconduciveto knowledge-sharing(seeFigure5.1).

Managingcommunities of practice :: discussingthe topic of how to explicitly managecommunities of practice,the difficul-=s,contradictions,and risks of (attempting to) do this require to be highlighted. The : , rtradictions and difficulties related to managing communities of practice stem from

SSUES A N D C U L T U R AI L SOCIAL their fundamentally informal, emelgent, and somewhat ad hoc natule (seeTable 5.1). These characteristicsmean that communities of practice are not easily amenable to topdown control. Communities of practice are autonomous, self-managing systems,which can exist and flourish without the need for any senior management support (Baumard 1999). Managerial attempts to control and influence communities of practice may therefore conflict with a community's systemof self-management.Thus, the risk, in attempting to explicitly managecommunities of practiceis that such attempts may in fact have adverse effectson the community, and the very knowledge processesthat such efforts are intended to support and develop. For example, one specificrisk may be that attempts to formalize a community may introduce dgidities which inhibit its innovativenessor adaptability. However,despitethese difficulties and potential problems, more and more organizations are attempting to develop and support communities of practice as part of their knowledgemanagementinitiatives. This sectionconsidersthe ways in which this can be done. Due to the narrow focus of this chapter,only issuesrelatedto managing and supporting individual communities and intracommunity knowledge processesare examined. The managerial implications of coordinating intercommunity relations and are discussedseparately,in Chapter 6. knowledgeprocesses In generalterms, the knowledge managementliterature advocatestwo main ways in which communitiesof practicecould, or shouldbe managed.Firstly,it is arguedthat their 'light touch'. Secondly,all managementinteNenmanagement should be done with a tions should reinforcethe essentialattributesof communities that makethem so effective at facilitating knowledgeprocesses. Two advocatesof the 'light touch' approachto managing communities of practiceare McDermott (1999), and Ward (2000). Thus, McDelmott suggeststhat organizations should, 'develop natural knowledge communities without formalizing them' (110). Ward, utilizing a garden metaphor, arguesthat communities of practice require to be, 'tended and nurtured rather than commanded and controlled' (a). The gardening metaphor, suggestingthe communities of practice have organic qualities and are continually adapting and evolving, usefully capturesthe informal and emergentaspectof communities of practice. However, the limitation of this managerial advice is that it is somewhat vague and lacking in detail. Thus, the analysesthat advocatesuch an approach 'light touch' managementapproach t)?ically fail to provide specificdetailson what the lookslike, or consistsof. More concreteis the secondtype of advice,to reinforcethe best attributesof communities of practice.This advicecoversa rangeof issuesincluding: o Emphasizepractice-based,peer-supportedlearning methods rather than formalized, methods as this reinforcesthe existing ways that communities learn classroom-based and shareknowledge(Brown and Duguid 1991;Stamps2000). 'non. Avoid privileging formal objectified knowledge,as this leadsto a neglect of the canonical' tacit, plactice-basedknowledge developed by communities (Brown and Duguid 1991). . Due to the significant length of time required fot communities of practice to develop (to allow the creation of a common perspective,and a stock of common knowledge,as

C O I VI \ 1 U INT IE S O F P R A C T I C E ',rell as a senseof collectiveidentity) continuity is important (Baumard1999).Overly discontinuoussocialrelationsare thus likely to hamper their development. . Find, nurture, and support existing communities (McDermott 1999). McDermott suggeststhat the best way to do this is reinforce each communities systemsof selfmanagement,for example strengtheningtheir existing mechanismsfor socialinteraction, and providing them with adequateautonomy to allow them to decideand control both what knowledgeis important, aswell ashow it should be organizedand shared. Therefore,a significant amount of advice existson how communities of practicecan .cst be supported.However,ironically, much of this advicesuggeststhat the bestway to :tanage communities is to provide them the autonomy to managethemselves.

- . cur work experience, of practicebeen?Were what hasmanagement attitudesto communities -:v awareof them?Werethey hostileto them?Were theygivenautonomyto be self-managing? Or, ,='e attemptsmadeto facilitate did theseattitudesand behaviours and managethem?Further, ,: tate or inhibitthe operationof thesecommunities?

Disadvantagesof communities of practicefor knowledgeprocesses rs outlined earlier,much of the communities of practiceliteraturepresentscommunities they arelargely 'r a very positivelight, suggestingthat in relation to knowledgeprocesses ,: exclusivelybeneficialfor organizations.However,the Iimitation of this idealisticchar:cterizationof communities is that it createsa blindnessto the rangeof potential ways in -,thichthey may inhibit organizationalknowledgeprocesses. Thus,while communities of :ractice may facilitate processesof knowledge-sharing,they also have the potential to -nhibit them. Arguably much of the communities literature has thus provided a some',ihat one-sided,and unbalancedanalysisof communities of practice.To avoid the same rroblem it is necessaryto consider the potential dark side of communities of practice. Irr-o specificissuesare examined here: first, how power and conflict can shapethe inter'blinkers' ::al dl,namics of communities; and secondly,the way communities may develop ',thich can inhibit innovations and intercommunity interaction. The issueof knowledge hoarding'within a community is discussedin Chapter 6, asthis is relatedto intercommun-iv relations.The issuesconsideredhere relate primarily to intracommunity dynamics.

Power,conflict, and the internal dynamics of communities .\s will be seenin Chapter 7, one of the major criticismsof the majority of the mainstream \nowledge management literature is the neglect of issuesof power and conflict. The communities of practiceliterature is no exception to this, and thus, generally,issuesof power and conflict within communities are either typically downplayed or ignored. In 5ituatedLeaming(1991) Lave and Wenger,as will be seenbeloq do discusstheseissues.

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES But their appealfor future analysesto take greateraccount of, 'unequal relations of power, (42) within communities has typically been neglectedby subsequentwriters (the most notable exception being Fox 2000). Further,these issueshave also been downplayed in someof their own later work, such aswenger (1998),where, as Fox makesclear,issuesof power and conflict are largely relegatedto footnotes. Further, while Wenger et aL.(2O02) devotea whole chapterto the 'downside of communities' issuesof power are ignored. Fundamentally, communities of practice have inherent tensions built into them which unavoidably results in them possessingan, 'unequal distribution of power, (Lave and wenger 1991,42),and wherewhat Fox (2000)describedas'power conflicts,arelikely. The uneven distribution of power resultsfrom the, by definition, greateramount of community knowledge mastershave compared to newcomers.Thus while communities of practice do not have a formal hierarchical structure, this does not mean that all members of the community areequal. This uneven distribution of knowledge createspotential conflicts in processes of legitimateperipheralparticipation.For example,Laveand wenger (rggl, 57) arguethat, 'There is a fundamental contradiction in the meaning to newcomers and oldtimers of increasing participation by the former; for the centripetal development of full participants. . . implies the replacementof old timers., Legitimate peripheral participation thus requiresthe 'old-timers' helping to develop the knowledgeof the 'newcomers'who will, over time, take their place.Further,the contradictions inherent in such a processare fundamental, and unavoidable (seeLave and Wenger, 1991,,1'13-17). Another sourceof conflict within communities of practice relates to the 'contradictorynature of collectivesocialpractice'(Laveand wenger 1991,5g). This contradiction relatesto the fact that white the membersof a community work together collectively and cooperate,they are also simultaneously, to some extent, competing with eachother inside their organizations,for examplefor promotion opportunities. The power conflicts that are an inherent aspectof communities take on greaterimportance when communities are faced with change, which, over time they inevitably do. Changethat requiresa community's practices/knowledgeto adapt, threatensthe statusquo (the reproduction of existing knowledge/practices),and can have contradictory implications for different membersof a community of practice (Fox2000).Thus old-timers may see such changeasa threat to thefu status,power, and knowledge,whereasother membersof a community may seeit as an opportunity to develop and increasetheir own power, knowIedge,and status.Theseinsights have two implications with regardto how communities of practice respond to change,which areboth neglectedby the mainstream literature. Firstly, communities of practice are as likely to resist as support change, and secondly,it can,t be assumedthat all the membersof a community will respond in the sameway to change.

A scientific community resisting culture change Breu and Hemingway (2002)studied a large Europeanscientificresearchorganization,Alpha, which had recentlybeen privatized.Followingthis privatizationthe scientistshad been highly resistantto the introductionof a new, commerciallyfocused businessculture.The scientistsin

C O M M U N I T I E SO F P R A C T I C E - 31a constituteda communityof practiceas they had the three constituentelementsof a com-- -1ity. Firstly,there was a shared,common practice(conducting'blue sky' researchin specialist : s : i p l i n a r yt e a m s ) .S e c o n d l yt,h e s c i e n t i s t sh a d a c o m m o n s e t o f v a l u e s( a b e l i e fl n t h e v a l u eo f . : entificresearchdrivenby scientificinquiryand the advancementof knowledge).Finally,the sci,-: sts in Alphaalso had a collectivesense of identity(asbeing professionalscientistswho were - - : r r b e r s o f b o t h a l o c a la n d g l o b a lr e s e a r c hc o m m u n i t y ) . -he resistanceby the scientistsin Alpha had a number of sources.One factorwas the particuchangerapidlywith only lim:' :hange implementationstrategyadopted(introducinglarge-scale However,a largepart of the scientists'resistancestemmed from the fact that ::t consultation). - ^ : v i n t e r p r e t e tdh e v a l u e so f t h e n e w e c o n o m i cc u l t u r e( p u r s u i n gr e s e a r c hd r i v e nb y e c o n o m i c ; , a s ) a s b e i n g a n t i t h e t i c at lo t h e v a l u e so f t h e i r r e s e a r c hc o m m u n i t y .F u r t h e r t, h e s c i e n t i s t s ' = ' , s e d t o c h a n g et h e i r v a l u e s ,a n d w e r e a b l et o q u i t e e f f e c t i v e l yr e s i s tt h e c h a n g e st h r o u g ha , - ge of strategiesincludingcontinuingto pursuework drivenby scientificvalues,recruitingnew =- entistsin ways which perpetuatedthe existingculture,and developingindependentand infor-: networksfor the resourcingof researchprojects.

in the UnitedStatesbiotechnology : ::elmanand Kogut(2003)identifiedslmilartensions - r -stry,betweenproducingknowledgefor scientificpurposesand knowledgefor economic tensionsbetweenthe and unavoidable :, ^. Doesthis meanthat thereare inevitable of knowledgef or moreabstract, of knowledgefor profit andthe development : - - mercialization : - ::rtific ourposes?

Blinkeredand inward-lookingcommunities ',','rile the collectivesenseof identity and valuesthat exist between membersof a com:r-inity can createa bond that may facilitate the developmentof trust, and knowledger:aring, there are potential negative consequencesif such bonds are too strong. For ::rnrrrple,where too stlong a senseof community identity existsthis may provide a basis 'community' are ignored, and their knowledge . : exclusion,where those not part of the :-.rt consideredto be relevant or important to the community (Alvesson2000; Baumard .999). This can causecommunities to becomeinward-looking, and unreceptiveto ideas .:nerated outside the community. In Such cilcumstances a communities' search ::ocessesmay be limited rather than extensive,with consequentnegativeimplications : 'r the communities'innovativeness(Leonardand Sensiper1998).See,for example,the ::arbuck and Milliken (1998)example of the ChallengerSpaceShuttle disaster,outlined =:rlier(p. 33). Suchcommunities may not only neglectexternalideas,but alsopeople.Communities :,':th a strong senseof identity may become exclusiveclubs or 'cliques' (Wengeret al. -,O2), where membershipis tightly controlled, and the factorsthat deflnea community's lentity used to excludeentry to others.Just as with the neglectof external ideas,such ::acticescan resultin communitiesbecoming poor at absorbingnew, externalknowledge ,:d ideas.

E

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Haveyou workedas partof a team,or communitywherethere hasbeena hostilityor blindness to performance? ideasgeneratedoutsideof it? lf so, did this haveanyeffecton groupor organizational

Gonclusion Communities of Practicehave been defined as informal groups that have some work activitiesin common. As a consequence,thesecommunities develop:(1) a sharedbody of common knowledge;(2) a sharedof collectiveidentity; and (3) someoverlappingvalues. The mainstream knowledgemanagementliterature portrays communities of practice asbeing effectivevehiclesfor knowledge-sharingand knowledgecreation.Consequently, the existenceof effectively operating communities of practice is typically argued to underpin individual and organizational-levellearning processes,as well as supporting high levelsof organizationalinnovativeness.The effectivenessof communities of practice in this respectis because: . The existenceof common knowledgeand a sharedsystemof valuesmakessharingtacit knowledge easier,as group membershave insights into the implicit assumptionsand valuesembeddedin eachother'sknowledge. r The sharedknowledge,values,and identity which exist alsofacilitatethe development and maintenanceof trust-basedrelations,which, asoutlined in Chapter4, createsocial conditions conduciveto knowledge-sharing. However,the chapteralsoconcludedthat the mainstreamliteratureon communities of practiceportraysan overly optimistic imageof them. To understandwhy communities of practicehave the potential to inhibit as much as facilitateknowledgeprocesses, account needsto be taken of issuesof power and conflict within communities, aswell as the way that too strong a senseof community identity may inhibit intercommunity processes of knowledge-sharing.This final conclusionpoints towardsthe dynamicsof intercommunity interaction, which is the topic dealt with in Chapter 6.

R E V I EO WU i S T I O N S

.:

:

lf you are, or have been a member of a communityof practice,how were you socialized? How did you developthe knowledge,values,and identitythat characterizemembership?Did your socialization closelyresemblethe processof legitimateperipheralparticipation describedby Laveand Wenger? 'community How relevantand accurateis the of communities'metaphorfor describingthe you haveworked in? Does this downplaythe amount knowledgebaseof any organizations of common knowledgewhich is typicallysharedby workers in businessorganizations? Basedon any organizational experienceyou have had,what effect havecommunitiesof practicehad on organizational knowledgeprocesses?Havethey been largelyor purely positiveand beneficial?Has there been any negativeaspectsto them such as knowledge h o a r d i n go, r a n u n w i l l i n g n e stso a c c e p ti d e a sf r o m o u t s i d et h e c o m m u n i t y ?

C O M M U N I T I E SO F P R A C T I C E

J. Laveand E. Wenger (1991).SituatedLearning:Legitimateperipheratparticipation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. A short, and highly accessibleintroduction to the concepts of situated learning,communities of practice, and legitimate peripheralparticipation. J. Brownand P Duguid(1991). 'Organization Learning and Communities of Practice: Towardsa UnifiedViewof working,Learning and Innovation' , organizationscience,2ll:40-bl. Applies the community of practice concept to work organizations,and discussesthe nature of organizationaI learning. S. Fox (2000).'Practice,Foucaultand Actor-Networkrheory', Journalof Managementstudies, 3716:853-68. Containsa good discussionof why power and conflict need to be accounted for when considerino comm unities of practice.

Interc0mmunity,boundary-spanning processes knowledge lntroduction This chapter is premissedon the idea that knowledge processeswithin and between communities of practice are quite different and distinctive. This is primarily because rvhile membersof a community of practicehave much common knowledgeand a strong sharedsenseof identity, people who are not membersof the samecommunity typically Jo not. While Chapter 5 examined the characteristics of intracommunity knowledge rrocesses,the focus of this chaptel is exclusively on intercommunity knowledge processes.Further, this chapter will show that intercommunity knowledge processes are typically more complex and difficult to make successful.Why this is the casewill be rully exploredasthe chapterprogresses. Intercommunity knowledge processesencapsulatean enormous variety of contexts and can involve knowledge processeswhich span community, occupational, organizational, functional, national, or project boundaries.This chapterbuilds on issuesraisedin Chapter 3, such as the nature of the organizationalknowledge base,and is primarily perspectiveon knowledge.This will becomeapparentas the iounded in a practice-based asvarious terms and conceptsare (re)introduced. chapterprogresses, The chapter begins in the following section by considering why intercommunity are so important. After this, the main sectionof the chapter examknowledgeprocesses ines the characterof intercommunity knowledge processes,and presentsa number of eramples to illustrate the points made. Finally, the chapter closesby considering the way that intercommunity knowledgeplocessescan be facilitatedand managed.

The significanceof intercommunity knowledge processes Considerthe following situations: . A ioint technology development project involving closecollaboration between UK and Japaneseelectronicscompanies(Lam 1'997).

@

S o C I A LA N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES r The consolidation of the knowledge base in some accounting and consultancy companiesfollowing mergersand acquisitions(Empson2001). o CollaborationbetweenindigenousMaori groupswith the New Zealandgovernmentin negotiation over land treaties(pauleenand yoong 2001). ' Attempts by proiect-basedcompaniesinvolved in the design of complex products to shareknowledgebetweenprojects(prencipeand Tell 2001). ' A large-scaleinteruniversityresearchprolect involving staff from three UK universities whose disciplinary backgrounds encompass engineering, operation management, organizationalbehaviour,and marketing (Newelland Swan2000). o Interorganizationalproduct development efforts in the biotechnology sector (Powell et al. 1996). o Ctoss-occupationalcollaboration that occurs as part of the concurrent engineering work at a semiconductorequipment factory in the USA (Bechky2003). All these situations, while being diverse in character,have one thing in common: they involve the sharing, or joint utilization and development of knowledge among people who do not typically work together, and who have substantially different knowledgebases.One of the reasonswhy examining the dyramics of intercommunity knowledge processesis so important is that the type of working practicesoutlined in theseexamplesis becomingmore and more common. Thus evidencesuggests that the use of proiect-basedworking methods and the utilization of interpersonaland interorganizational networks has become widespread(for example, seeCastells1996; Cravenset al. 1996; Daviesand Brady 2000; Powell 1990).For example,all three of the organizational contextsexaminedlater,in Chapters1,2-14,i.e. knowledge-intensivefirms, global multinationals,and network/virtual organizations,involve the utilization of intercommuniw knowledgeprocesses. Another factor that signalsthe importance of intercommunity knowledgeprocesses is the growing acknowledgementthat the knowledgebasesof all organizationsare to some extent fragmented into separate,specializedknowledge communities. As outlined in chapter 3, this led Brown and Duguid (1991, 53), to refer to organizationsas being comparableto a'community-of-communities'. Thus, the knowledgebaseof all organizations can be consideredas being made up from a diversity of localized communities which have some overlapping knowledge in common, but which also possessmuch specializedand speciflcknowledge.As this perspectiveis closelyassociatedwith the practicebased perspective on knowledge, the specialized and localized nature of much organizationalknowledge is related to the particular tasks and activities that different groupsof workersundertake. From this perspective,one of the generaltasksof managementis to coordinate these diverseinternal communities,integrating,diffusing,and combining fragmentedinternal knowledge as necessary (Blackler et al. 2000; Brown and Duguid zool; Grant 1996; Tsoukas1996).Thus, if the knowledgebaseof all organizationsis constitutedby a diverse collection of specializedknowledgecommunities,managingintercommunity knowledge processes will be a day-to-dayactivity for most organizations.

KG N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S BOUNDARY-SPANNIN

to knowledgebaselikelyto be proportronal in an organization's : :he levelof fragmentation of managingsucha fragmentedknowledgebase size?Further,if so, arethe difficulties :-ganizational (ely to be greatestfor large,globalmultinationals?

Thus, the importance of intercommunity knowledge processesstemsboth from the fact :hat the contempolaly Iestructudng of olganizations is placing a Sreatel emphasis on tntercommunity and interorganizational working than has been traditional, and also ":ecauseintra-organizational coordination can be conceptualized as involving intercom:nunity interaction.

g intercommunity knowledge processes Characterizin -ntercommunity knowledge processesinvolve collaboration between individuals who are -ikely to have a limited amount knowledge in common, and who may have a limited, or -,seaksenseof shared identity. As will be seen, in terms of knowledge processes,the .onsequencesof this are significant. .trs illustrated by Figure 5.1 in the previous chapter, knowledge plocesses within .ommunities of practice are facilitated by the high degreeof common knowledge, over-appingvalues,and sharedsenseof identity that community memberstypically possess. Ihis is becausein such circumstancesit is likely that the tacit assumptionsunderpinning reople's knowledge, which are key to effective knowledge-sharing, are likely to be well ':nderstood, or commonly shared. Also, the level of trust and mutual understanding retween people in this context is also likely to be conducive to effective knowledge.haring. Hansen (L999), in the context of product innovation and development frocesses,argues that effective knowledge-sharing requires two key elements to exist Table6.1). First,people must be willing to sharetheir knowledge,and secondly,people nust have the ability to shareknowledge. Both these elementstypically exist within comnunities of practice as due to the shared knowledge and values, there is enough mutual -rnderstandingto make the sharingof knowledgepossible,while the senseof sharediden:itv and values makes it probable that people will be willing to sharetheir knowledge. However, in intercommunity knowledge processesthe situation is somewhat different seeTable 6.2). ln these circumstancespeople will have much less shared, common .nowledge, they may only have a weak sense of shared identiry or may even have distinctive and separateidentities, and, finally, may have fundamentally different value Table 6.1. Factorsunderpinningeffectiveknowledge-sharing (adaotedfrom Hansen1999) Willingness mutualunderstanding) Ability(adequate

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U B A LI S S U E S

Table6.2. Factors makingintercommunity knowledge processes difficult Limitedcommonknowledge Weaksharedidentityor differentsenseof identity Values/assumptions potentially different

systems.Thus, the social relations between people who are not members of the same Sroup/community are much lessconducive to effective knowledge-sharing.For example, Hansen (1999) found that when weak ties existed between people this was likely to impede the transfer of complex knowledge (knowledge which was highly tacit, and which had a high level of interdependencewith other knowledge). The following two subsectionsconsider how the lack of a sharedidentity, andlor a limited degreeof common knowledge can inhibit knowledge processes,illustrating the issuesexaminedwith examples. ldentity Peoplefrom different groups or communities who work together may have either a weak senseof common identity, or may have distinctive and separateidentities. For example, consider the situation described by Lam (1997), outlined above, and elaborated more fully later. In the electronicscorporation examined, the Japaneseand uK staff who requiredto collaboratehad a weak senseof sharedidentity asbeing membersof the same organization. Instead,their identity was more closely linked to the divisions they had historically worked within. More negatively,Empson (2001)found post-mergerattempts at consolidatingthe organizationalknowledgebasein one of the consulting companies she examined to have been signiflcantly inhibited by the strength of identity that staff retained for their pre-mergerorganizations,and the typically disdainful view that they had regardingthe knowledgeand experienceof workersin the company they had been mergedwith. This potentially weak senseof common identity arguably complicates knowledge processes through the potential for conflict this creates,aspeoplewith differing sensesof identity may perceivedifferencesof interestto exist betweenthemselvesand others.The issueof conflicting interests,and how this can inhibit knowledge-sharingwastouched on earlierin Chapter 4 and is examinedagain more fully in Chapter 7.

Globalbank:conflicting identities inhibiting knowledge-sharing G l o b a l b a n ki s a D u t c h b a n k t h a t g r e w a g g r e s s i v e l b y y a c q u i s i t i o nB. y t h e l a t e ' l 9 9 0 s i t h a d divisionsin over 70 countriesworldwide. At this point corporatemanagementdecided it was necessaryto lmprove levels of coordinationand knowledge-sharing between divisions.A key element of this strategy was the developmentof a global intranet,a project developedand

BOUNDARY-SPAN I NNG K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S -anaged by corporatelT staff. However,Globalbankhad a strong historicalcultureof divisional :.rtonomy,with divisionshavingtypicallyoperatedcompletelyindependentlyfrom each other. -rus each divisionhad controlledhow it was organized,with the consequencethat each division -ad its own working practices,lT systems,etc. For example,each divisionhad its own intranet : te, with its own specificstyle, levelof functionality,etc. Staff thus typicallyhad a strong sense of identitywith their division,and possessedspecialist .rrowledgerelatedto their division'sparticularcustomers,products,marketconditions,and inter^al ways of working. The globalintranetprojectexperiencedsignificantproblems however,as -anagement staff f rom most divisionswere hostileto the idea,primarilybecausethey perceived :.e objectivesof the projectto be incompatiblewith their desire to retaindivisionalautonomy. -1us one of the main obstaclesto the project'sprogresswas the strongersense of identitythat .ey divisionalmanagementstaff typicallyhad for their specificdivisionratherthan the corporate l'oup asa wnore.

,'Jhatcanbe doneto overcomethe narrowsenseof divisional identitythat staffhad,whichwas :rting as a brakeon the progressof the globalintranetproject?

Knowledge The difficulties of knowledge-sharing between communities are however related to more than just the senseof identities that individuals possess.Another, equally important factor complicating such processes,outlined above, is the nature of the knowledge possessedby people in these situations. Thesedifficulties stem from three interrelated factors ,Table6.3). Firstly,the degreeof common knowledgesharedby peoplemay be quite limited, with different people possessingspecialistknowledge related to the specificactivities they each undertake.Secondly,the knowledgepossessed by people may also be 'sticky' and difficult to share as it may be context-specific, tacit, and highly localized in nature rBrown and Duguid 1998; Lam 1997).Thirdly, and finally, there may be significant epistemologicaldifferencesin the knowledgepeoplepossess(i.e.their knowledgeis basedon different underpinning assumptionsand values).Thus, for example,Newell and Swan r2000) found that the difficulty of knowledge-sharing between different members of the researchproiect they examined were related to epistemologicaldifferencesin their knowledge, which stemmed from the different disciplinary backgroundsthey came from. Table 6.3. Knowledge-related factorsadverselyaffecting intercommunityknowledgeprocesses Limitedamountof commonknowledge 'sticky' Knowledgepossessedby peopleis anddifficultto share (highlytacitandcontext-specif ic) Fnictomin

difforonnoc

(people's knowledgebasedon differentassumptions, values)

a

E

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

The difficulties of sharing sociallyembedded knowledge Lam (1997)examineda joint technologydevelopmentbetween

a Japaneseand a UK electronics company While the companieswere competitorsthe Japanese company had a majorityshareholdingin the UK company.However,this collaborative relationship provedproblematic,with staff frequently referringto, 'probremsof poor communication, misinterpretationof specifications. and the clash between their approachesto product development', with these diffjcultiesbeing primarilyattributedto, 'differencesin the organization of knowledgeand work between the partner f irms' (989) Lam foundthe knowledgeof all relevantstaff to be deeplyembeddedin the social and organizational context,and that further,the knowledgebaseand organizationat contextof both divisionswere significantlydifferent.While in the UK companythere was an emphasison formaljzedknowledge,developedthrougheducation,in the Japanese companytacrtknowledgeaccumulatedthroughexperiencewas more important.Secondly,in the UK companythere was a clear demarcationof lob boundaries,limited use of job rotation,and a tendency for peopleto develop narrowlyspecialized knowledgebases.ln the Japanesecompanyby contrastoue to the emphasis on team-workingthe demarcationbetween jobs was biurred,and due to the use of job rotation, people'sknowledgebaseswere typicallybroad.Finally, there were also signifrcantdifferencesin the way knowledgewas sharedand developedthroughoutthe product cycle.ln the UK division, product design, and the developmentof detailedspecifications was principalythe domain of design staff. In the Japanesecompany by contrast production and design staff both had an importantrole in the developmentof productspecifications, with this 'interactive'way of working requiringa significantlevelof 'knowledge-sharing between upstreamand downstreamstaff,(gg0) These differencestherefore made the process of knowledge-sharing, and Joint technology developmentextremelycomplicated.

Thissuggeststhatthe sharingof knowledgebetweenpeoplewith cultureswhicharequitedifferent is likelyto be difficult.Froma management pointof view,what can be doneto addresssuch problems?

The issueof epistemologicaldifferencesis worth elaboratingon, assuch differencescan have a profound effect on attempts to shareor collectively utilize knowledge. Brown and Duguid (200I, 2O7)argue that while the advantageof communities of practice is that 'common . . practice . createssocial-epistemicbonds,, conversely,,[p]eople with different practiceshave different assumptions,different outlooks, different interpretations of the world around them, and different waysof making senseof their encounters.,Thus, people from different communities of practice, or work groups, may not only have limited amounts of common, sharedknowledge,but the knowledge they possessmay be basedon a fundamentarrydifferent systemof varuesand assumptions. Suchissuesmay arisein multidisciplinary work (Newell and Swan2000),where staff from different organizational subunits require to collaborate (Hansen 1999), in international

B O U N D A R Y - S P A N NKI N O G W L E D GPER O C E S S E S .ollaborations involving people with significantly different cultures working together Pauleenand Yoong 2001),where people from different occupational communities lequire :o shale knowledge (Bechky 2003), or where different organizational functions require to collaborate(seeFrance-coexample below). The complexity of knowledge-sharingin such ;ircumstances stems from the fact that epistemological differences between people or basicprearoupscan inhibit the development of even a fundamental understanding of the of 'culfeeling the nisses,and valuesthat the knowledge of othersis basedon. For example, :rre clash,that people can experiencewhen visiting a country with very different cultural .;aluesstemsfrom difficulties in understanding the basicvaluesunderlying'other' cultures' \ewell and Swan (2000) suggestthat the gleatel the epistemologicaldifference between :ollaborating parties,the lesschancethere is that such collaborationswill be successful,and :1e more likely that they will not be able to effectively integrate their different perspectives :nd knowledgebases.

France-co:epistemic differencesin cross-functionalcollaboration As partof the company's :-ance-Co for militaryandcivilaircraft. components produces specialist of the ColdWar it decided end practices the following management new ::.emptsto introduce intendedto improve (ERP) was which system, Planning Resource .: mplementan Enterprise an enormouschallenge This projectrepresented knowledge-sharing. ,els of interfunctional had - France-co, for thisproject,salesandproduction, functions as two of the mostimportant - s:oricallyshared little information.These functionalgroups possessedtheir own specialist worked : : Ciesof knowledgeand staff typicallyhada strongsenseof identityf or the f unctionthey typically was - Further,the knowledgepossessedby staff in these groupswas highlytacit,and -=velopedthrough practice,over time. Finally,relationsbetween these functionalcommunities - . J h i s t o r i c a l lbye e na n t a g o n l s t l c . ERPprojectdevelopedit becameapparentthat the lackof knowledge-sharing ls France-Co's to :::ween these communitieswas proving detrimentalto the project Thus, initialattempts -clement the new Systemproved disastrousand had to be stopped.The main reasonfor this ., Lre was that staff in both the sales and productionfunctionswere not sharingthe type of ,^cwledge and informationthat was necessaryfor the success of the project While this -: rctance to share knowledgewas partly relatedto the historicalantagonismbetween these --^ctions, it was also relatedto the specializednatureof the knowledgethey each possessed. -had a s, combinedwith the extensivelackof interactionthat had been typical,meant that they .:ry poor understandingof how each other worked, or what their constraintsand requirements ,,e:e, Thus,even when staff f rom these communitieswere willingto shareknowledgewith each of ::^er, effectivelydoing so proved difficult,as each had an extremely limited understanding ',^at knowledgewas relevant,important,or useful to the other' parties \\rhen such significant epistemological differences exist it is necessary for the knowledge any before ,rr-olved to develop an improved level of mutual understanding :an be effectively shared, or collectively utilized (Bechky 2003). From a practice-based

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES perspective,developing such an understandinginvolves the sort of perspectivemaking and taking processesoutlined in Chapter 3. While the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge assumesthat processesof perspectivemaking and taking are necessaryfor the sharing and communication of knowledgein all circumstances,the lack of common knowledge in intercommunity contexts raisesthe importance of such processes. These perspectivemaking and taking processes do not result in the integration of the different knowledgebasesinto a coherentwhole, but should insteadinvolve a processof dialogue, where 'eachcommunity maintains its own voice while Iisteningto the voice of the other' (Gherardiand Nicolini 2OO2,42I).Thus, perspectivemaking and taking occursthrough a processof talking, listening, acknowledging, and being tolerant to any differences identified. In conclusion,intercommunity knowledgeprocesses areinhibited by the differencesin the knowledgepossessed by the people involved in such processes. In generalterms, the greaterthe degreeof common knowledge that exists,the more straightforwardknowledge processesare likely to be. Further, the characterof knowledge processesin such circumstancesarealsoaffectedby the degreeof epistemologicaldifferencein the assumptions and valuesunderpinning the knowledgebasesinvolved, with a high level of epistemologicaldifferencelikely to significantly increasethe difficulty and complexity of such knowledgeprocesses.

ldentity, knowledge,trust, and socialrelations One of the maior conclusionsto emergefrom the previous section was that where the common knowledgebaseis limited, or where people have a limited senseof sharedidentity this means that the socialrelationship betweenpartiesis unlikely to be strong, and that the foundations for the existenceof trust are relatively weak. Thus in such circumstancesnot only is the existenceof strongtrust unlikely, but the developmentof trust will typically be complicated and difficult. Fundamentally,the level of trust and mutual understanding between people who do not normally work together and who are not membersof the samework group or community of practiceis likely to inhibit the sharing and collectiveutilization of knowledge,aswas discussedin Chapter 4. The importance of trust in thesesocialcontexts,combined with the complexity of the concept of trust, means that it is worth elaboratingmore on the topic. Analysesof trust show it to be a theoreticallycomplex conceptwhich has multiple dimensions(Lane1998; Newell and Swan 2000; Zucher 1996).Thus, most analysesof trust outline a number of different types of trust (seeTable 6.4). Further,this work showsthat thesetypes of trust are distinctive in character, are developed in quite different ways, and have a complex, mutually interdependentrelationship. The limited basis for trust which exists in intergroup contexts, and particularly for newly formed intercommunity project groups can be seenfrom any of the three tlpologies of trust described.Thus the nature of the social retationship between people in a newly formed intercommunity work context precludes the existence of what Zucker (1996) referred to as process-based, and characteristic-based trust, what Lane (1998)

BOUNDARY-SPANNIN KG N O W T E D G EP R O C E S S E S

Table6.4. Typologies of trust Author/s - - c k e r( 1 9 8 6 )

-,^e (1998)

. : . 1 / e ta n o

Typeof trust

Descriptionof trust

Processbased

Basedon experience, and builtup overtime

Characteristic based

Basedon socialsimilarities andculturalcongruence

Institutional based

Trustbasedon institutional or professional reputation, NOTinterpersonal familiarity

Calculative

Trustbasedon someform of caiculation regarding costs/benefjts

Norm/value based

Trustbasedon commonsocialvalues

Cognitlve/expectation oaseo

Trustbasedon commonexpectations aboutfuture events,and/orpatternsof behaviour

Companion

Trustbasedon judgementsof goodwillof friendship, builtup overtime

Competence

Trustbasedon perception of otherscompetence to carryout relevanttasks

Commitment

Truststemmingfrom contractual obligations

: . , a n( 2 0 0 0 )

-:erredto asvalue-or expectation-based trust, and what Newell and Swan(2000)refeired ascompanion- and competence-based trust. Thus in suchcircumstances, the onlybasis : trust is the most impersonal,and arguablyweakesttypes of trust (institutional-based . Zucker'sterms, calculative in Lane'sterms, and commitment-basedin Newell and ,"'-an's terms).Thus, aswill be discussedin the following section,one of the main waysto ,:.litate the development of knowledge processesin intercommunity work contexts is -:ough the development of trust basedon better mutual understanding and stronger :;al relations.

you havewith a rangeof people.To what extentaretheserelationships .'::t on the relationship '.-: on differenttypesof trust?Further, how doesthe levelandtype of trustyou havein different - -: e affectthe amountandtypeof knowledgeand informatron you sharewith them?

Facilitating/managingknowledge between communities - ro this point the chapter has emphasizedthe not insignificant difficulties in the : :.tive, collectiveutilization of knowledgein intercommunity work groups.However, ' =>edifficultiesarenot insurmountable. Thus, there is much that can be done to address ' ' : rll, drld increasethe chance of intergroup work processes effectivelymaking collective . of their knowledge. In generalterms, this involves improving the level of mutual - :erstanding and developing the socialrelationship between relevant people.Current :ing suggests two broad waysin which this can be achieved.First,work can be invested

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U F AI LS S U E S in managing the social relationship between people, and secondly, developing the existing areasof overiapbetweenpeople. Relationshipmanagement Relationshipmanagementinvolvesattempting to developthe socialrelationshipbetween the people involved in an intercommunity work group to becomelessbasedon the most impersonai,and relativelyweakforms of trust outlined above.In Newell and Swan,sterms, this involvesmoving away from a relationshipbasedon commitment trust, to one where competenceand companion typesof trust aredeveloped.However,successfully achieving such a transition is by no means straightforward.Primarity, the development of these more personaltypes of trust involves group membersdevelopinga greaterlevel of sensitivity to and understandingof the knowledge,values,and assumptionsheld by other membersof the samework group. This requiresthe processes of perspectivemaking and taking outlined earlierin the chapter,which requiresall partiesto both talk and listen to each other. However,the more limited the amount of shared,common knowledge,and the greaterthe levelof epistemologicaldifferencein the valuesand assumptions,the more time-consumingand complicatedthis processis likely to be. Further,to be effectivesuch processes may well requirea certainlevel of face-to-face interaction (Bechky2003).This is because,as Lam (1997, 992) suggestseffectivecollaborationin this context requiresthe development of, 'direct and intimate social relations . tas] . . . Iearnerswill need to become"insiders"of the socialcommunity in order to acquireits particularviewpoint., Brown and Duguid (1998)identifled two rolesthat key individuals could take in the development of intercommunity social relations: brokers and translators.The brokering role is relevant where there is some pre-existing overlap in the knowledge of the communities/ people involved. A broker is someone who inhabits both communities, and uses their knowledge and understanding of both to facilitate the development of mutual understanding between other membersof the communities. Gherardi and Nicolini (2002)arguethat a broker is someonewho has the ability to, 'transfer and translate certain elements of one practiceto another'. The role of translator is relevantwhere there is no overlapping common knowledge between communities/people. This requires the translator to have a detailed knowledge of both communities, and further, the translator requires to be trusted by the members of both communities as they play such a key role in interacting between them. Suchroles are acknowledgedto be extremely complex and difficult to successfullymanage.

How lmportantis face-to-face interaction for the development of trustandan effectiveworking relationship betweenpeoplefrom significantly differentcultures?Cancross-cultural workinqrelations be developed withoutanyface-to-face interaction?

Boundary objects The third and final method discussedby Brown and Duiguid (1998) to facilitate intercommunity knowledge-sharinginvolves the development and utilization of boundary

B O UN D A R Y - S P A N N IKNNGO W L E D GPER O C E S S E S Dbjects.Boundary obiectsare entitiesthat are common to a number of communities and can be either physical or linguistic/symbolic in character.Boundary objects provide a iocus for negotiation, discussion, or even shared activity betr,veenpeople from different communities, and thus can be utilized to help develop and improve the working relarionship between people, and the mutual understanding they have of each other. One of the most common type of boundary objectsmentioned by Brown and Duguid are contracts, which typically provide a focus for intercommunity negotiation, and which can help provide an initial stimulus to a processof perspectivemaking and taking at an early stagein the working relationship of an intercommunity work group. Gherardi and Nicolini (2OO2)examined a building site, focusing on how safety issues n'erejointly negotiated by the three communities of practice with some responsibility for and involvement in safetyissues.Thesethree communities were engineets,site foremen, and main contractors.Boundary objects in this context included the physical site that e\.eryoneworked on, the building under construction,aswell asthe assortedrangeof raw materialsthat were used, and which were dotted around the building site. Howeveq there \rere someequally important linguistic boundary objects,such asthe term 'safety'itself. One of the main ways that relationsbetween thesethree communities were developed, and negotiations of how safetywas managed on site occurred was through discussionand negotiation over these boundary objects, which provided a common focus which brought the communities together.

UK-Pension:boundary objects and brokers -rs outlinedin Chapter5 (seep. 63), UK-Pension had traditionally been structuredinto two levelsof autonomythat they constituted that operatedwith suchsignificant tiscretedivisions processwhich As partof a majorrestructuring of practice. separate and distinctcommunities integrated structure, to move towards a more in the mid-1 990s UK-Pension attempted cegan Onekey areas:lifeassurance andpensions. ,vithgreaterlinksbetweentheirtwo mainbusiness callcentre.Thiswas a singlecall ,vaythis was donewas throughsettingup a cross-business the callcentrewas staffedby areas.lnitially, lentrethatwouldhandleworkfrom bothbusiness projecthavingthe with the leaderof the callcentreimplementation ceoplefrom bothdivisions, 'oleof persuading was in the roleof therefore staffto work in the centre.The projectmanager object.Whilethe callcentrewas a a (new)boundary croker,and the callcentrerepresented sitewhere andwhichwouldprovidea physical coundary objectcommonto bothcommunities, it represented with it. Further, wouldworktogether, staffwereunfamiliar stafff rombothdivisions it required stafffromboth for UK-Pension, notonlybecause changein workingpractices a radical useof a callcentrewithinthe to worktogether, but becauseit was the firstlarge-scale Civisions project played in communicatmanager Therefore, role by the call centre the brokering :ompany. someof themto work in it was key.ln ng the purposeof the callcentreto staff,andpersuading an was successf ul in hisbrokering role,as hewas ableto persuade :heend,the projectmanager numberof staffto changejobsandwork in the callcentre. adequate

E

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Conclusion This chapter narrowly focused on cross-community,boundary-spanning knowledge processes.Arguably, the relevance and importance of cross-community knowledge processeshas increaseddue the changesin working practicesthat have emergedfrom the contemporaryrestructuringof work organizations.The differencebetweenintra- and relatesto the senseof sharedidentity and typically inter-community knowledgeprocesses high level of common knowledgewhich existswithin communities (seeChapter 5), but which is relatively absent from intercommunity contexts. Further, it may also be the case that not only are there limited amounts of common, sharedknowledgebetweenparties, but that there may be epistemicdifferencesin the knowledgeof the peopleand communities involved, where their knowledgeis basedon fundamentally different assumptions and values. Typically, as illustrated by a number of examples,intercommunity knowledge processesare likely to be more complex and difficult to make successfulthan intracommunity processes.This is due to both the differencesin identity, which may induce intercommunity conflict, and the lack of common knowledge.Somewhatsimplistically, the lesscommon knowledgethat exists,and the greaterthe level of epistemicdifference, the more complicatedand difficult the knowledge-sharingprocesswill typically be. Knowledge-sharingacrosscommunities was shown to requiretwo primary, and closely interrelatedelements,both of which aredevelopedthrough a processof socialinteraction and communication. First, an adequatelevel of trust requiresto be developedbetween the individuals from both communities,ideally with the strongestforms of personaltrust (Zucker), being developed.This gzpeof trust has been variously labelledas process-based cognitive (Lane),and companion trust (Newell and Swan).Secondly,people from both communities require to develop a basic understandingof the values,assumptions,and viewpoints which underpin each other's knowledge base.This processof perspective making and taking, which was also examined in Chapter 3, requiresnot a merging of these different knowledgebases,but an appreciationof, sensitivity to, and toleranceof the differencesin perspectivewhich emerge. Finally,the chapterexaminedthe waysin which intercommunity knowledgeprocesses can be facilitated, through brokers/translatorsattempting to bridge communities and develop relations between them, and through the use of boundary obiects that are common to all relevantcommunities.

REVIEW QUESTIONS networking t Theprevalence of interorganizational canbe gaugedby a simplepieceof E.x a m i nteh eb u s i n e ssse c t i o n f r o ma n ys e r i o uds a i l yn e w s p a p earn dy o ua r el i k e l y research likelyto be more However, is thistypeof workingpractice to findrelevant examples. factors affectthe extentto commonin somebusiness sectorsmorethanothers?What networksaredeveloped andutilized? whichinterorganizational

N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S B O U N D A R Y - S P A N N I NKG

2-:eorySuggeststhatmoreimpersonaIformsoftrust,suchascommitment-basedtrustor ^stitutionallybasedtrust are typicallyweaker and more f ragilethan trust developedthrough arongoingsocralrelationship,suchasprocess-basedtrust.Doesthisref|ectyourown experience? you and your g leflect on any work experiencethat you have had.To what, if anythingdid ,vorkcolIeaguesmostStronglyfeelasenseofidentityasbeingpartof:yourimmedlatework group,thefunctionyouworkedin,thedivisionyouworkedfor,ortheoverallcorporate of an effectiveworklng group?Are these sensesof identltylikelyto inhibitthe development .elationship,and the sharingof knowledgewith peoplefrom differentpartsof the ? crqanization

F U R T H ERRE A D I N G

l

'Knowledgeand Organization: A SocialPracticePerspective" o J. Brownand P Duguid(2001). OrganizationScience,1212:198-213' A|argetytheoreticat,butwe||writtenandaccessib|epaperwhichref|ectsonthewhatmakes in tercom m unity knowl edg e-sharing difficult' rA.Lam(1997).'EmbeddedFirms,EmbeddedKnowledge:ProblemsinCollaborationand organizationstudies,l 8/6: 973-96 KnowledgeTransferin Globalcooperativeventures" difficulties of knowledge sharing within A theoretically groundedcase studywhich examines the an internationalProiect team 'Trustand lnter-Organizational Networking"HumanRelattons' S. NewellandJ. Swan(2000). 531101281-1328 on the role of trust in shaping the An empiricaltyrich andtheoreticallyinnovate casestudy proiect team dynamics of a multi-disciplinary Canon Practices: of lnterconnected in a Constellation r S. Gherardi and D. Nicolini(2002).'Learning ' 41 9-36 3914 Studies' Management or Dissonance?Journalof intercommunitysense-maktng Examinestherole of boundaryobiectsand brokersin facilitating

r

and worKng

!ryffiffi and conflict, PoweL processes knowledge lntroduction One of the defining characteristicsof the vast majority of the vwiting on knowledge management is that any discussion of power is $,pically absent, and as a consequenceit can only be assumedthat this literature doesn't regardissuesof power asbeing important in shaping and understanding organizational knowledge processes.This is not exclusively the case,because,as will be seen,a number of writers do take such issuesseriously(for example Contu and Willmott 2003; Goodall and Roberts2003). Suchan omission ispuzz' iing, as a cursory glance outside the narrow confines of the knowledge management literature revealsboth the need to understand issuesof power in explaining organizational dynamics, as well as the close relationship between knowledge and power. Thus, understanding the relationship between power and organizational knowledge processesis of fundamental importance, and the task of doing so is magnified by the general absenceof such an analysis. While power has not been adequatelydealt with in the knowledge management literature there has been a growing acknowledgement that not only can people's attitudes to participate in knowledge activities be highly variable, but that interpersonal or intergroup conflict in knowledge processesis not uncommon. Theseissuesare raisedagain here, but are explicitly linked to power. Arguably, a missing link in the knowledge managementliteraturethat doesaddresssuch issuesis that it doesnot addressthe fundamental causesof such conflicts. To do so requirespower to be accounted for, which revealsnot only the inherent potential for conflict that exists in organizations, but how power is structurally embedded in the employment relationship. In the analysis presented, power and knowledge will be seen to be extremely closely interrelated, which is another reason why issuesof power require to be accounted for in attempting to understand the dyramics of organizational knowledge processes.However, there isn't a consensusaround either how power should be deflned, or how its relationship to knowledge should be conceptualized. This is accounted for by examining two of the most influential perspectives, and considering their implications for knowledge processes. The chapter is structured into three major subsections.The first subsection re-engages with the topics of the employment relationship and conflict, but suggeststhat a full

E

SSUES A N D C U L T U R AI L SOCIAL understandingof their dynamics requirespower to be accountedfor. The following two subsectionsthen separatelyexamine the two perspectiveson power considered.The flrst examinesthe 'power as a resoulce'perspective,while the secondexaminesthe work of Michel Foucault.However,what is common to both perspectivesis the closenessof the relationshipbetweenpower and knowledge.

Knowledge processesrthe relevanceof power and conflict The objectiveof this sectionis to outline why issuesof power and conflict areimportant, To do and require to be taken into considerationwhen examining knowledgeprocesses. 4: the Chapter in this involves returning to, and elaborating on two issuesdiscussed employment relationshipand the inherent potential for conflict that existswithin organizations.This section showshow locating theseissueswithln their socio-economiccontext requiresthat power and politics be taken into account, and that it is fundamentally impossible to fully understand either the employment relationship or organizational conflict without referenceto theseissues.

Power and the employment relationship The fundamental characterof organizationsis an issuewhich has, thus far, not been addressedin detail. As with so many other subjectsof analysisin organization studies, there is little consensuson the topic. However,limitations of spaceprecludean examination of the different perspectivesthat exist. Instead, the perspectiveutilized here will simply be outlined, and all further analysisbuilt from these assumptions.The model of organizationsutilized here is neatly summed up by McKinlay and Starkey(1998,2), who suggestthat 'behind the fagadeof efficiency, equity, or humanity which surrounds formal organizationsof all kinds lle distinct concentrations of power/knowledge'.From this perspectivethere are thus fundamental inequalities in the distribution of power and knowledge (or power-knowledge)in organizations,which can be (partly) explained by examining the nature of the employment relationshipin detail.

Are ls conflictinevitable? sayaboutthe natureof organizations? What doesyourown experience powerimbalances inherent2

As outlined in Chapter 4 there are contradictory tensionsbetween workers and their employing organization over the ownership and control of workers' knowledge (Contu and Willmott 2003). On the one hand, their interestsmay be compatible, through the potential mutual beneflts that workers and their employers may derive from the employer supporting and facilitating the workets' knowledge activities. On the other hand, simultaneously,the requirement of organizationsto appropriateeconomic value from their workers' knowledge may conflict with their workets' individual objectives in

P O W E RC, O N F L I C A TN , D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S :nis respect.For example,while there areeconomicbenefitsto organizationsfrom having :heir workersshareor codify their knowledge,workersmay be unwilling to do so if they :eel such a processmay dilute and diminish their expertise.Such tensionsare amplifled rr- the (potential) fragility of the emplo)'rnent relationship resulting from the ability of roth parties to easily terminate the relationship, the worker through leaving, or the .mployer through making workersredundant. A concreteexample of such a conflict was examined in Chapter 5 (seep. 68-9) where :rembers of a scientific community of practice resistedthe implementation of a 'comitercial'culture astheybelievedthat its economicfocus,where the emphasiswason mak.ng profits from scientificresearch,was not compatible with the basic ethos of research driven by the more abstractobjective of advancing knowledge (Breu and Hemingway 3002). The extent to which these objectivesare generally compatible is discussedin Chapter15. However, only when the employment relationship is located within the socioeconomiccontext of capitalistrelationsof production doesa structurallyembeddedpower :eiationshipbecomevisible (seeFigure7.1).This conceptualizationof context is basedon 3 realist perspectiveon social structurewhere social action is embeddedin what Reed 2000, 52,55) referredto as the 'recurringmatricesof socialstructure',where such struc:ures are assumedto, 'pre-datethe socialactionswhich reproduceand transform them'. \fore specifically,Tsoukas(2000), developing a realist conception of the employment :elationship (seeFigure 7.1) referredto the 'structural basis of managers'power' (34), -'r-hichplacesworkersin a typically subordinaterelationship managers/superiors. to With :his framework management are the mediating agentsof capital owners and shareholders, n-hereorganizationsare shapedby demandsto make profit, and accumulatecapital,and n-hich requires managers/superiorsto control and simultaneously achieve the cooperation (self-regulation)of workers in order to turn their labour power into actual, productivework effort (Contu and Willmott 2003).

Realismisa philosophy thatassumes thatwhilesocial structures areprodu ced(andreproduced) through social action, thereareenduring social structures whichexistindependently ofthesocialactorswho p r o d u ct hee m

At this point, a signif,cantcaveatis requiredwhen consideringthe situation of knowledgeworkers.The power of management over workers is contingent upon the specific characteristicsof the organizational context, and the power of management can be diminished or enhancedby shifts in societalpower relations (Tsoukas2000). For knowledge workers two factors imbuing them with power are first, the tlpical importance of their knowledge to the organizations they work for, and secondly, the general scarcity of their skills in labour markets, which makes many knowledge workers highly sought after (Beaumontand Hunter 2OO2;FIoodet al. 2001).Thesefactorsarethus likely to provide knowledge workers with significant amounts of power (this issue is returned to in

E

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Industrial structure capitalowners

____

powers Casual of superiors P 1 :C o n t r o l P2:Cooperation P1:Efficiency and ^+1^-+1,,^^^-cilELLtVEt te))

Key:- Necessary relation F i g .7 . 1 . T h es t r u c t u r e o f c a p i t a l i set m p l o y m e nrte l a t i o n (sf r o mT s o u k a2s 0 0 0 )

chapter 14). However,the tensions and conflicts in the employment relationship outIined above still apply. Thus, while the basic structure of the employment relationship is the samefor all workers,the specificbalanceof power betweenmanagement and workers can vary enormously. But a constant issue for managers in business organizations, whether referring to low-skilledroutine workers,or highly skilled knowledge workersis the necessityto ensurethat the labour power of these workers is converted into actual productive effort. what is likely to vary, depending on the balance of power in the employment relationship,is the extent to which strategiesof control and/or cooperation areutilized (Figure7.1).

How uniqueis the situationof knowledgeworkers?Are theythe onlytype of workerswhose knowledgeis importantandvalued?Canyou thinkof othertypesof workers who haveimportant knowledgethat providesthem with a sourceof power?

In conclusion, the embeddednessof power, and the potential for conflict in capitalist employment relations means that power has to be accountedfor when attempting to understandthe dynamics of knowledgeprocesses. Conflict, power, and politics The potential for conflict in organizationsemanatesfrom more than iust the nature of the employment relationship. This potential flows from the different interests which exist within organizationsbetween both individuals and groups.Marshall and Brady (2001, 103), for example, refer to the, 'frequent organizational reality of divergent interests, political strugglesand power relations'.This divergenceof interestsmay come from individuals/groups competing over scarce organizational resources, or through clashes betweenthe personalobiectivesand strategiesthat individual employeesmay pursue in order to sustain and develop their careers,such as receiving recognition for particular efforts/knowledge, receiving financial rewards,or gaining promotions. using a weberian

P O W E R ,C O N F L I C TA, N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S Table7.1. Weberian-based types of action/rationality

I

Type of action - =l i t i o n a l

: re Rational

_

- ^,, ^+i.,^

Underlying rationale

Knowledge-related examples

Automatic,habitualaction, rational borderline

with Willing,unquestioning knowledge-sharing withina long-established community colleagues of practice.

Shapedby emotion, rational borderline

Unwillingness to participate in knowledge processwith individual/group dueto (emotionally abilitiesand based)negativeopinionregarding knowledgeof others-Empson2001.

Actlonorientedto values. Valuesbelievednot rationally based,but action i n p u r s u ilts .

Participate in knowledgeprocess,suchas R&D process,dueto beliefin activities or innovation socialvaluesandbenefitsof knowledge 2002(knowledge advancement-Fuller production for its own sake).

Instrumentalrationality. Most rationalactionof all, basedon means/end calculations.

Willingparticipation in knowledgeprocessdue to benefits calculation that,on balance, (recognition, financialreward)outweighrisks (lossof expertise)-Morris2001.

framework,human action can alsobe classifiedinto different categories,basedon different typesand degreeof rationality (Cralb 1,997)(seeTable7.L).Thus the potential for contlict within organizationsis due to the interest-ladennature of human behaviour, the diversityof intereststhat individuals/groupscan pursue,and the competing rationalities that underpin their actions. Empirical evidencesuggeststhat the implementation of knowledge managementini is a common battlegroundwhere such tiatives/or participation in knowledgeprocesses, that such interconflictsareplayedout, asa growing body of casestudy evidencesuggests personaland intergroup tensionsand conflictsarecommon in organizationalknowledge processes(Empson 2001; Marshall and Brady 2OO1;Newell et al. 2000; Ward 2000; Willman et al. 2001). However,to understandhow conflicts evolve,and to explain the attitudesand behaviours of people in situationsof conflict requirespower and politics to be introduced, and demandsan understandingof the relationship between theseelements(seeFigure 7.2). This complex relationship can usefully be explained by making referenceto a speciflc example.Figore7.2 can be understood as a cycle within a cycle,with the inner cycle of the political processbeing shapedby the broader cycle encompassingthe relationship betweenthis process,conflicts of interests,and power. Storeyand Barnett (2000)analyse a singlecompany casestudy of a failed knowledgemanagementproject. One of the main reasonsfor the failure of the project was that there was a lot of interfunctional conflict over the ownership of the project,with different functional groupsattempting to usethe knowledgemanagementproject as a political tool to pursuea broader agendarelatedto shapingthe future of the company'sIT infrastructure.Theseattemptswereresistedand challenged by other individuals and groups within the organization producing'micro-political

I

r

E

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Competing/conf lictinginterests

Political Process ,,,' Modeof influence Political <+

\

\1 \{ OU',uOe/response to power

Differentpowerresources Fig.7.2.Linkingpower,politics,and conflict

battles',where eachinterestgroup utilized particularpolitical tacticsand modes of influence,drawing upon the different power resourcesthat they had. Thus, not only was the knowledgemanagementinitiative itself shapedby, and subjectto, power struggles,political battles, and conflict, but ownership of the initiative itself was used as a political tactic to pursuea broaderagenda.This model will be returnedto, and elaboratedupon in the following section,when the Halesmodel of power is described.

France-Co:knowledge hoarding and cross-functionalantagonisms In the France-Coexamplediscussedin Chapter6, the unwillingnessof Salesand Productionstaff to share knowledgewith each other was seen to underminetheir change project.As outlined, this was partlyas a resultof the epistemicdifferencesin their knowledgebases, However,equallyimportant in explainingthe reluctanceof staff to share knowledge across functionswere a number of other factors.Firstly,a deep-seatedand historicallyembeddedattit u d e o f m u t u a ls u s p i c i o nm , i s t r u s t ,a n d a n t a g o n i s me x i s t e db e t w e e nt h e s e f u n c t i o n sT. h u st h e requirementof the changeprojectfor staff in these f unctionsto shareknowledgewith eachother challengedthis. Secondly,there was a concernby staff in both functionsthat by participatingin the changeprogrammeand sharingtheir knowledgethat somehow they would lose power and 'giving statusthrough away'their expertknowledge.For example,the knowledgeand experience of sales staff was typicallytacit, and developedover time, through experience.These workers were concernedthat the requirementof the changeprogrammeto codifythis knowledgemeant that they would lose either their autonomy,their expert knowledge,or both. For these reasons, sales staff were therefore quite reluctantto activelyparticipatein the knowledge codification element of the changeproject.This behaviourcould also be interpretedas politicalin natureas it was shaped by a particularagenda-attempting to either stop the change programme,or to shapeit in ways deemed more acceptableand/oradvantageousto the salesf unction.Finally,the

P O W E R ,C O N F L I C TA, N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S -etuctanceof salesstaff to participatein the codificationprocesscould be regardedas a political ::ctic involvingthe use of one of their sourcesof power-the knowledgethey possessed.

underpins frameworkoutlinedin Table7.1,what type (ortypes)of action/rationale -sing the Weberran project? change in France-co's staff of sales behaviour :re

In conclusion, this section has shown that not only does the diversity of interests and rationales which underpin action make intra-organizational conflict likely, but that to understand the dynamics of these conflicts requiresissuesof power and politics to be accounted for.

Power and knowledge processes:theorizingthe relationship Up until now, power is a term that has been used,but not defined. The following two subsections each provide separateand quite distinctive definitions of power. This is done deliberately to illustrate two of the dominant perspectivesin the debate on what power is, and how it should be conceptualized.As well asdefining poweq the following two subsectionsalso look at the consequencesof these conceptualizationsfor the relationship betweenpower and knowledge.As will be seen,what is common to both perspectivesis that power and knowledge are closely interrelated, which provides further support to the arguments already examined that power requires to be accounted for when considering organizational knowledge processes' The neglect of power in the knowledge management literature means that it has been necessaryto draw on work from outside of it to provide one of the conceptualizations of 'power aSresource'perspectiveis basedon power used.Thus, what can be defined asthe the work Colin Hales (1993)who developedhis framework to understandthe nature of managerialwork. The secondperspectiveexamined is basedon the work of Foucault, which aswill be seenhas been utilized and adapted by a number of writers to understand organizational knowledge processes' Beforeproceedingto examine these two perspectiveson powet and the implications they have for organizational knowledge processes,it is necessaryto make one final obserthe vation. When consideringthe relationshipbetweenpower and knowledgeprocesses, Thus' (see 7.3). Figure in nature cyclical as being be understood relationship requiresto not only does the possessionand use of power affect knowledge processes(as illustrated themselvesare by the Storeyand Barnett examplejust considered),knowledgeprocesses iikely to impact on the character,distribution, and use of power in organizations.Thus for example,Gray (2001) suggeststhat the use of lCT-basedknowledgerepositoriesis likely to change the balance of power in organizations. While he suggeststhis may result in a reduction of the power of workers (asrepositoriesmay make workersmore easilysubstituted, and that they may reduce the analytical content of work), he arguesthat the effect of such technologies on the organizational balance of power will be mediated by the choicesand strategiesthat organizationalmanagementpursue.

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Knowledge Management Processes

F i g .7 . 3 . T h ec y c l i c arle l a t i o n s h ibpe t w e e nk n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e nptr o c e s s e s a n oo o w e r

Power as a resource As outlined, the subsectiondevelopsa conceptualizationof power drawn from the work of Hales(1993).However,for the purposesof this book, it is not necessaryto fully articulate everyaspectof his model. Thus there will be a closefocuson how this conceptualization links to knowledge, and how it can help understand the d;,rramics of knowledge processes. Hales (1993, 20) defines power resourcesas, 'those things which bestow the means whereby the behaviour of others may be influenced and power relations arise out of the uneven distribution of theseresources.' This deflnition is thereforebasedon a similar conception of organizationsas that outlined earlier in the chapteq where power in not regarded as being evenly distributed. Secondly,this definition, Iike the objectivistdefinition of knowledge,regardspower to be a discreteresource/entitythat people can possess, or have accessto, and which they can use in attempting to modify the behaviour of others. Furtheq Hales arguesthat power resourceshave this ability through three specificpropertiesthey possess(seeTable 7.2). Firstly,they are relatively scarceand only availableto some. Secondly,they are desired becausethey can satisfycertain wants. Finally,there are no alternativesavailable.

mffi

(Definition Power no.1)

Power isa (scarce) resource whoseuseallows to shaoe thebehaviour oeople ofothers

Halesidentifiesfour basic types of power resource:physical resources(the capacityto harm or physically restrict the actions of others); economic resources(money); knowledgeresources(scarceor desirableknowledge);and normative resources(meanings,values,or ideologieswhich are scarceor desirable).For Hales,political actsare those actions wherebypeopleattempt to influenceothersthrough the useof thesepower resources(see Figure7.2). Furtheqtheseresourcesareavailableto peopleeither through personallypossessingthem, or by virtue of organizationalposition giving accessto them. For example, money can be a sourceof economic power to either those who possessadequateamounts of it, or to those who individually have accessto financial resources(such as through control

P O W E R C O N F L I C TA. N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S

of knowledge thatcanmakeit a powerresource Table7,2.Properties Property

Knowledge-power

Scarcity

whichonlya limitednumberof peoplepossess. knowledge/expertise Specialist though Knowledgewhichmay be highlytacit,andwhich requiresto be developed experience.

Satisfywants

or use whichmay satisfyindividual wantsthroughits possession Knowledge (suchas status,or rewards), goalsand or knowledgewhichsatisfiesorganizational which or use (suchas providingorganizations objectives throughits possession innovations). status,profits,marketshare,or product/market

'lo

throughthe a l t e r n a t i v e s Wherethe wantswhicharesatisfied(seeabove)areonlyachievable possession or useof specifictypesof knowledge.

Table 7.3. Power resourcesand modes of influence(adaptedfrom Hales1993)

Power resource

Personal

Positional

Physical

lndividual strength, meansof violence

Accessto/controlover meansof violence

Economic

lndividual wealth

Accessto/controlover economicresources

Knowledge(administrative) Individual expertise

Accessto/controlover relevantknowledge

Knowledge(technical)

Individual expertise

Accessto/controlover relevantknowledge

Individual beliefs/values,

Accessto/controlover

narqnnrl

it^^^ tLlcd5

Normative

nrraliiiac

^^t dilu

.,^t,,^^ vdtucJ

--rr-er budgets).Thus, for eachpower resource,there are two separatemodes of influence :r-ailable:personalor positional (seeTable7.3). Dowerand knowledge Ilis conceptualizationof power thereforeshowsthe closerelationship with knowledge, '; knowledgerepresentsone of the four fundamental types of power resource.Secondly, t"rwer can be derived from knowledge either through someonepossessingit (personal ,rnowledgepower), or through having accessto knowledge by dint of organizational posicould :-on. Thus, for example,a seniormanageremploying externalconsultants/advisers :e argued to be using their position to gain accessto important knowledge-power ::sources.Thirdly, Hales makesa distinction between two types of knowledge,each of '.','hichcan be an important power resource: administrative knowledge (knowledge of -:ganizational processes,rules, regulations, etc.); and technical knowledge (specialist ,.nowledge of particular work activities/tasks, or knowledge relevant to such activities). of the relationshipbetweenknowledgeand power meansthat ::nally, the connectedness

E

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES all behaviours involving the use of knowledge to some extent involve the use of power, and can be understoodaspolitical actsdriven by attemptsto pursueparticularobjectives (seeFigure7.2). Thus, for example, in the context of knowledge-sharingboth willingly sharing knowledge,or hoarding and protecting knowledge from others could be interpreted as a political act shapedby particular interests/objectives,involving the use of the knowledge-poweran individual possesses. A willingnessto shareknowledgewith others may be driven by a desireto contribute to organizational performance or to receive status and rewards from being seen to use personal knowledge,whereasa reluctanceto share knowledge may be due to concernsthat one is giving away what makes one powerful, or from a desireto prevent certain individuals/groups gaining accessto one's knowledge. Social capital One important modification that requiresto be made to Hales'model is to take account of socialcapital.The role of socialcapital in shaping organizationalperformanceand its role in affectingknowledgeprocesses has increasinglybeen acknowledgedsincethe mid1990s(Adler and Kwon 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998;YliRenkoet al. 2001). Social capitalrelatesto the networksof mutual acquaintancesthat peoplepossess, and is defined formally, by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998, 243) as 'the sum of the actual and potential resourcesembeddedwithin, available through, and derived from the network of relations possessed by an individual'. Arguably,however,socialcapital can be conceptualizedas a potential power resource,and can be addedto Hales'model asa fifth dimension of knowledgepower. As with the other sourcesof power in Hales'model, social capital can be a sourceof power through the personalsocialcapital that peoplepossess, or asa positional power resource,availableto peopleas a result of their formal organizationalposition.

(class,religion, Socialupbringing gender,ethnicity), position(seniority organizational increases likely accessto importantsocialnetworks), andpersonalendeavour areallarguedto be importantin the development of socialcapital? Are anyof theseelementsmore importantthanthe others?

The final part of Hales'smodel requiring elaborationis how the use of power is shaped by the responseof those subjectto it (seeFigwe 7.2).such judgementscan have important implications for behaviour,as if someone'spower is deemedas tegitimate,then people are more likely to comply than if it is regardedasbeing of dubious legitimacy.This is equally true for positionally basedor personallypossessed power resources.Thus while managerialpower is, to someextent, a function of organizationalposition it is one of the problematicaspectsof managementthat suchpower can't be assumedtobe automatically deemed as legitimate by workers (Hislop et al. 2000). For example, behaviour such as verbally abusingworkers,or not adequatelyconsulting them, may undermine the extent to which power relatedto managerialposition is deemedlegitimateby workers. For Hales,the legitimacy of eachpower resourceis likely to vary (seeFigure7.4).Thus for example the use of physical power/ such as threatening violence, is likely never to be

P O W E R ,C O N F L I C TA, N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S

Legitimacy

Modes of influence

Response

(overactual/overtprovisional/covert) ?hysical

Force/threaVmenace

!conomic

promise Reward/promise/implied

<nowledge

g gestion/accepted Rationalpersuasion/su practice

I

Administrative

Rules/acceptedprocedures

lechnical

nethods Specrficariors/accepred

\ormative

Moral persuasion/moral suggestion/ moral obligation

Likelyto be perceivedas n o n -e g i t i m a l e

-l *",''"* t*.'"'

Alienative complrance

Economic calculation

Instrumental complrance

Rational calculation

Cognitive commitment

f urnoiguoJt

] Likelyto be perceivedas legitimate

Moral commitment

Fig.7.4.The perceivedlegitimacyof, and responseto attemptsto usedifferentpower r e s o u r c e(sf r o mH a l e s1 9 9 3 )

deemedas legitimate. In contrast,the legitimacy of knowledge-powerresourcesare typically ambiguous, with their legitimacybeing evaluatedby workers dependent upon conlextual factors.Theseissuescan be illustrated by examining the politics of knowledge which can involve negotiationsand conflict regardingthe legitdisseminationprocesses/ imacy of different and competing knowledgeclaims (seeChapter3, p. 34-5 for a previous exampleof such a dispute).

The UK accounting profession:disputed knowledge '.litchell e t a l . ( 2 0 0 1 )d e s c r i b ea n u m b e ro f c a s e sw h e r e t h e v a l i d i t yo f t h e i r k n o w l e d g ea n d f i n d -gs were disputed,and which involvedthem in highlypoliticalbattlesover the accuracyof their . - l t h c l a i m sW . h i l et h e s p e c i f i cd e t a i l so f t h e c o n fl i c ta r e n o t r e l e v a n tt,h e g e n e r adl y n a m i c so f t h e I spute illustratehow processesof knowledgedissemination,equallyas much as processesof .rrowledgesharing,creation,application,etc., involvethe use of power resources,and can be - g h l yp o l i t i c ai ln n a t u r e . Primarily,basedon the accumulatedevidenceand knowledgethey possessed,and the analy'public (529)which represents face of respectability' s s of it that they made,they challengedthe :^e dominantlmage of the UK accountingprofession.However,attempts were made to silence :r s knowledge,and preventit becomingpublicby those with a vested interestin maintainingthe : c m i n a n t i m a g e .T h i s w a s a t t e m p t e dp r i m a r i l yt h r o u g ht h r e a t so f ( l i b e l l)a w s u i t s .U s i n gH a l e s ' s '-amework, individuals/groups in possessionof economic and knowledge power resouTces

E

E

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S (socialand culturalcapital)attemptedto use this power throughthe politicaltacticof threatening lawsuits.However,Mitchellet al,did not regardthe knowledgeclaimsof those challenging them as legitimate,and resistedthe attemptsto preventtheir work beingpublished.Ultimatelythey were successfulin their endeavoursand havepublishedtheir findingsin variousbooksand iournals.

UsingHales'sf ramework(Table7.3)what type/sof powerresouTce doesthreatening libelaction involvethe use of? Doesthis examplesuggestthat allthesedifferentpowerresources are interrelated?

Thus, while McKinlay (zoo2, 79) comments that knowledge management can be regardedas a 'brake on corporate forgetting' the caseof Mitchell et al. suggeststhat knowledgemanagementcan involve deliberateattemptsto engineerprocesses of forgetting. Knowledgemanagementis thereforenot only about remembering and managing knowledge,but activelymarginalizing,discarding,and forgetting knowledgenot deemed as legitimate. Thus, the dissemination of knowledge can be a highly political process involving confllctsto establishthe legitimacy of competing knowledgeclaims.

Foucaultand power/knowledge It is impossibleto examine the relationship betweenpower and knowledgewithout taking account of the work of the Frenchphilosopher,Michel Foucault,asarguablyhe is the singlemost influential author in this area.As will be seen,Foucault'sconceptualizationof powel/ and characterizationof the relationship betweenpower and knowledge,is quite different from that elaboratedby Hales.This sectionbeginsby giving a brief overviewon the way Foucault theorizespower and its relationship with knowledge. Following this there will be two subsectionswhere a Foucauldianframework is used to examine the dynamicsof different organizationalknowledgeprocesses. one of the main themes in Foucault's work is (self) discipline and the role of power/knowledgein attempting to produce (and reproduce)it. However,before considering how disciplineis producedit is necessaryto startby examining Foucault'sdefinition of power,where it is worth quoting him in full. on the bodyis conceivednot asa property,but asa strategy. . . this poweris [T]hepowerexercised exercised ratherthanpossessed; it is not the 'privilege', acquired or preserved, of thedominantclass, but the overalleffectof its strategic positions-aneffectthat is manifested andsometimes extended by thepositionof thosewho aredominated. (Rabinow1997,174, quotingfromFoucault's Discipline andPunishment) Thus Foucault suggeststhat power, rather than being a discreteresourcethat social actorscan utilize, is something which is produced and reproducedwithin and through the dynamics of evolving socialrelationships.Further,Foucaultsuggeststhat power and knowledgeare so inextricably interrelatedthat they are fundamentally inseparable,and coined the phrase power/knowledge to symbolize this (Foucault 19g0). To properly

P O W E R ,C O N F L I C TA, N D K N O W L E D G E PROCESSES appreciate Foucaurt in this respect, it is again worth quoting him in fulr: lrver produces knowledge ' ' . power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no -:or'ver relation without the correlativeconstitution of a field of knowledge,nor any knowledgethat :oes not presupposeand constitute at the same time power relations.(Rabinow rggl, 77 ,quoting :om Foucault'sDisciplineand punishment) The implicatlon of this insight for understanding the dynamics of knowledge processes : therefore profound, as alr uses of knowledge, or attempts to shape and manage knowl_ =Jge within organizations, inevitably involve the use of Dower.

::wer is produced andreproduced throughthe evolution of socialrelations. what it is andwhatit does : ' s t h u st h es a m et h i n g .

T based knowledge management: The power of thepanopticon I's outlined above, central to Foucault'sanalysisin this area is the topic of discipline, ':d how it is achieved'The obiectiveof disciplinary power it to define the parametersof :" rat is acceptableand unacceptabre, to punish those who transgress,and urtimately to ::oduce docile,obedient,self-discipliningbehaviour. For Foucault,the socialtransforma:-,'n from feudalism to capitalism saw a change in the way discipline was achieved. ,'"lthin capitalism,the use of expert knowledge/powerand surveillancevia panopticans r:rfes€nt two key disciplinary practices(Clegg 199g).Expert knowledge/powercan play ' ;isciplining role through providing an ideologically basedjustification for what behav-lrs are appropriate' A panoptican is a surveillance instrument, a too.[which has the ' tential to monitor behaviour continuously, but where the observeris invisible to the - .:son being observed.with such a mechanism, the threat of surveillancemay be '::quate to produceself-discipriningbehaviour by the subjectof the panoptican,asthey i:r neverbe surewhen or evenif they arebeing observed. - hat ICTshave the potentiar to be used as panopticans is vividly ilrustratedby Lyons :--his books on surveiilancein contemporary society (Lyons rg94, ze()r).In relation to ' : }vledge management,this represents one of the main ways in which Foucault,swork .: beenapplied. - he potential for ICTsto be tools of surveillance is well documented.For example,the : '':ensiveliterature on call centresillustrates the bewildering diversity of ways in which ':-': behaviour and work of call centrestaff can be monitored via their use(Bainand Taylor - ' t0;Ball and wirson 2000;Thylor 199g;Tayror and Bain 1999).ICTsrepresentan almost ' ::fect example of a panoptican, as the act of observationis (virtuaiy) invisible, and rkersdon't know when and if they are being observed.The idea of ICTsas a panopti_ .: has also been applied to the understanding of ICT-mediatedknowredgeprocesses '" coth McKinray (zooo, zooz) and Hayesand walsham (2000). However,they come to . --te different conclusiorrs.

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES The analysisdevelopedby Hayesand walsham, basedon a casestudy company,suseof Sloupwaretechnology (Lotus Notesl), concluded that ICTs did representeffectivepanopticans and had a significant disciplining effect on worker behaviour. In their study workers were concernedthat what was said on Lotus Notes would be visible to senior management,which made someworkersreluctant to articulateviews not felt to be compatible with senior management perspectives.The particular forums where management participation was deemed likely thus tlpically resembleda ,public fagade,(g4), where workerscensoredthemselvesto presentmanagementwith a particular impression.This was arguedwould lead to a processof 'homogenizalion'where diversity would be damaged. Thus, basedon this analysis,a potentially negative effect of the use of ICTsfor knowledge management is that becauseof such factors they may not reflect, or perhaps even damage the diversity of knowledge and attitudes which t'?ically exist in organizations. McKinlay (2000,2002)presentsan alternativeanalysis,which suggeststhat the disciplinary power of ICT-basedknowledge management systemshas been somewhat exaggerated.McKinlay's analysis,basedon a casestudy of the UK divisions of an American pharmaceuticalcorporation, suggeststhat ICT-basedknowledge management systems have a limited ability to capture highly tacit knowledge. Furtheq workers have the ability to resist the disciplinary gaze of such systems through creating and communicating within'unregulated socialprocesses, (2002).

Basedon yourown experience, do lCTsrepresenttechnologies with significant power? disciplinary Cantheirgazebe avoided,resisted,or subverted?

Knowledge workers and (willing) setf-disciptine The typical image of the relationship between knowledge-intensiveworkers and their employersis of a win: win scenario,where such workers are highly skilled, have a lot of autonomy in their work, whose knowledge is highty valued, and whose contribution to organizationalperformanceis regardedaskey (seeChapter 4). Such analysestypically do not describeany negative consequencesthat may be experiencedby such workers. Deetz (1998) takes a critical perspectiveto such assumptions,and usesa Foucauldian framework to consider how such work involves a processof (selt) subordination/discipline which can have damaging effectsfor such workers. This analysisalso revealsmuch about the power dlmamics involved in the relationship between knowledge workers and their employing organizations. In many ways, the knowledge workers (consultants)examined by Deetz did comply with the dominant image. They were highly paid, highly educated,relatively happy, had good careerprospects,and did a relativelyhigh-statusjob. Further,they had a high degree of work autonomy,which reinforcedthe senseof statusthey had. Therewasalsoevidence of goal alignment betweenthe company and the employees,where the consultantsconsistently under-reported the actual hours they worked for clients, acceptedthe long working 1 LotusNotesis a specific,widelyusedIBM software systemwhich allowsgroupsof peopleto electronicallycommunicate, collaborate, and share/modifydocumentation collectively.

P O W E R .C O N F L I C TA, N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S

--rurs which were common, and were preparedto do what was deemed necessaryby -.-entsto get the job done. However,theseconsultantswere not totally free from organizationalcontrol systems. l.:rmative control systemswere used through an extensivesystemof culture managerent (Kunda 1992).This operatedthrough the usual mechanismsof vision statements .rd socializationprogrammesand shapedwhat were regardedas desirable/acceptable :.haviours. values,and attitudes. Deetzarguesthat there was a dark side experiencedby the consultants,but that they :ommitted willingly to it. The Faustian pact they negotiated involved subordinating to the organizationin exchangefor the attractivelevelsof pay, status, :reir selves/bodies 'rd job security that working as a consultant provided. Self-discipline/subordination -rr-olved them controlling themselvesin order to further the organization'sobjectives. -)ne of the aspectsof the dark side for these workers was that the adoption of a self.Jentity asa consultant involved acceptingthe demandsof clients,evenwhen they were '-rnreasonable. Suchdemandstypically requiredtheseconsultantsto work long hours. To to this successfullyinvolved the consultantssubordinating their own bodies and non',vorklives to their job. Thus when the body (through illnessor tiredness),or non-work lommitments (such as family), conflicted with work objectivesthey were regardednega:ively, asthey inhibited the achievementof work-relatedobjectives. Partof the reasonfor this willing self-subordination,where theseworkersplacedstresslu1work demandson their bodiesand their familieswas due to the perceptionthat, while rrork conditions were good, a climate of fear wasn't far below the surface,where if they hadn't committed the hours necessary,or achievedthe required results,then negative may have ensued.Thus, even for high-status,knowledge-intensiveworkconsequences ers,issuesof conflict and power are not absent,and only a little amount of digging is requiredto exposethem.

Conclusion on power havebeen examined,they both point to the While two contrastingperspectives analyse and effectively understandthe full dynamicsof organizational conclusionthat to requirespower to be accountedfor. The chapterhas identified three knowledgeprocesses key reasonswhy this is the case.First,power is embeddedin the employment relationship between workers and the organizationsthey work for, and the potential conflict that existsbetweenworkersand their employersover how workers'knowledgeis usedcannot be fully understood without taking account of power. Secondly,understanding the dynamics of intra-organizationalconflicts over how knowledge is used, for example where certain groups or individuals may be unwilling to share knowledge with each other, can alsoonly be fully understoodwhen power is accountedfor. Finally,power and knowledgeare closelyinterrelated,if not inseparable. As a consequence,one of the most generalconclusionsof this chapteris that the centhat trality of power to knowledgeprocessesmeans that any analysesof such processes neglectto accountfor power arerelativelyimpoverished.For example,taking accountof

@

SSUES A N DC U L T U R AI L SOCIAL power helps to explain and understand the human/social dimension of knowledge processes, such aswhether peoplearewilling or reluctant to participatein organizational 'what we know affectshow Thus, Walsham suggests(2001, 603) knowledge processes. influential we ale fthus] . . . there may be good leasonswhy individuals may not wish to participate in, or may modify some aspect of their sense-giving activities, for reasons relatedto organizationalpolitics.' Knowledgemanagementwas alsoshown to be concernedwith more than simply managing all the knowledge that exists in olganizations. Key to knowledge management processesare decisions about what knowledge is important/irrelevant, and what knowIedge is reified/marginalized, and power plays a fundamental role in such processes. Finally, based on the work of Foucault the chapter showed how power is implicated in ICT-mediated knowledge management processes/through the potential for surveillance and monitoring which is possiblewith such technologies.

.,qe,t:i,q+T,tt*]q$ili:r.i-;, ,"..1 ii:+ii;i.tiliit overhow of workersandtheiremployers arethe interests how compatible r In general, economic to derive by organizations is used?Doesthe requirement workersknowledge valuefromit meanconflictis likelyor inevitable? Can if not inseparable. arecloselyrelated, thatpowerandknowledge z Thechapterassumed involve do not which in organizations used can be youthinkof anywaysin whichknowledge the useof powerin oneway or another? of them of powerexaminedCanyou relateeither/both 3 comparethe two conceptualizations your own experience? to of knowledge throughthe utilization + Whattypeof workers,if any,arelikelyto be empowered to storeandcodifyknowledge? repositories

i**,*$,+t$tid***ttnt in and Self-Surveillance' o S. Deetz('l998).'Discursive Subordination Strategized Formations, lheory, London:Sage, A. McKinlayand K. Starkey(edsl,Foucault,Managementand Organization t5 t-t z.

Providesan interesting counterbalanceto the mainstreamperspectiveon knowledge workers analysisto iltustratehow power and conflict is experrencedby through using a Foucauldian-based such workers. r

'The Workand Limitsof KnowledgeManagement'New Technology, A. Mckinlay(2002). Emplovment,1l 12:76-88. Critiquesthe tCTas panopticanperspectiveby lllustratingthe limitations of lCT-basedknowledge managementpractices.

andthe Politicsof Knowledge: o N. MarshalandT. Brady(2001).'KnowledgeManagement lllustrationsfrom ComplexProductSystems'EuropeanJournalof lnformationSystems, 10: 99-112.

P O W E R ,C O N F L I C TA, N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S Providestheoreticaland empiricalsupport for the argument that issuesof power andconflict requtre to be accounted for in analysingorganizationalknowledge managementinitiatives. P Gray(2001).'Thelmpactof KnowledgeRepositories on Powerand Controlin the Workolace, lnformation Technologyand People,1 414:368-g4. Speculatedon how the use of lT-basedknowledge repositoriescan affect the distributionof power in organizations.

Wffi'$ andcommunication Information andknowledge technologies management Introduction As outlined in Chapter 4, one of the dominant themesin the early knowledgemanagement literaturewas the importance of the role accordedto information and communication technologies(ICTshereafter).This is visible in two ways. Firstly, ICTshad a central place in much of the early knowledge management literature (seep. 44), with the vast maiority of this writing being optimistic regarding the role that they could play in knowledge managementprocesses.Secondly,ICTshad a prominent role in many of the earliestknowledge management initiatives. Thus, Ruggles(1993), reporting on a 1997 sulvey, found that the four most popular tlpes of knowledge management projects involved the implementation of intranets, data warehouses,decision Supporttools, and Sroupware(groupwarerelatesto sharedinformation spaces-such as Lotus Notes-which allow a range of people to work rvith the samedocuments simultaneously.More generally,they are technologiesthat support collaboration and communication). While theseperspectiveshave been the subjectof rvidespreadcriticism, this has nof led to a position where ICTsareregardedashaving no usetul role. Instead, there has been an enormous evolution in how the relationship between ICTsand knowledge managementprocessesis conceptualized.This chapter examinesthese changes.

Informationand communicationtechnologies(lGTs) and and/orsharingof knowledge the management whichallow/facilitate lCTsaretechnologies including technologies of heterogeneous diversity Thusthetermcoversan enormous information. and the internet, searchengines, systems, data-mining e-mail,databases, telephones, computers, v i d e o - c o n f e r e n cei qn ug i P m e n t .

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES Hendriks (2001)describedthe bringing together of ICTsand knowledgemanagement asinvoiving the clash of two titans, as such an enormousamount of ink has been spilled on examining both topics, and the interrelationship between them. Attempting to do iusticeto the scaleand scopeof the debateon theselinkagesin the spaceof one chapter is thereforea difficult task. The chapterbeginsby examining the role ascribedto ICTsin knowledgemanagement processeswhen an objectivist perspectiveon knowledge is utilized. Following this, practice-basedperspectiveson the relationship between ICTs and knowledge processes will be examined,with the vast differencesbetweentheseperspectivesbecoming visible asthe chapterprogresses. Howevet,there isn't a consensusamongstthose writing from a practice-based perspective,thereforethis section of the chapter examinesthree areasof disagreement/debate. Thesedebatescentre on: (1) the extent to which ICTscan facilitate the sort of perspective-makingprocesses describedin Chapter 4i Q) the extent to which communication mediums have fixed or variable degreesof information richness and (3) the extent to which trust can be developedand sustainedin socialrelationsmediated by ICTs.Following this, the chapterclosesby examining the dynamicsof implementing ICT-basedknowledgemanagementsystems.

g ICT-supportedknowledge management processes Characterizin The following two sectionsexamine the substantiallydifferent ways that the objectivist and practice-based perspectiveson knowledgesuggestthat ICTscan be used in organizational knowledge managementprocesses.while, as outlined in chapters 3 and 4, the obiectivist perspectivehas been the subjectof widespreadcriticism, this perspectivestill underpins many contemporcty knowledgemanagementinitiatives.

Objectivist perspectives Chapter 2 outlined in detail both how the objectivistperspectiveon knowledgeconceptualizesknowledgeand how it characterizes knowledge-sharingprocesses. However,it is n'orth briefly restating some of the key assumptionsof this perspective,as they help explain the rolesthat this perspectiveassumesICTscan play in knowledgemanagement processes.Firstly, this perspectiveconceptualizesknowledge in entitative terms, with knowledgebeing regardedas a discreteobject that can exist separatelyfrom the people n'ho possessand useit. Secondly,there is an optimism embeddedin this perspectivethat much knowledgeeither existsin an explicit form, or that it can be made explicit through a processof codiflcation (Steinmueller2000). Thirdly, this perspectiveconceptualizes knowledge-sharingas being basedon a transmitter-receivermodel (seeFigure2.r), and assumesthat it is relatively straightforwardto sharecodifiedknowledge. Building from theseassumptionsthose utilizing an objectivistperspectivebelievethat ICTscan play a direct role in knowledgemanagementprocesses. Basedon this viewpoint, rrhich swan and Scarbrough(2001) refer to as the 'knowledgemanagement as technoiogl'' perspective,ICTs simply representsone channel/medium through which explicit

T E C H N O L O G I EASN D K N O W L E D G EI V A N A G E M E N T

<+ FACILITATES

I C Tr o l ei n u n d e r p i n n i n g processes knowledge

knowledgeprocesses ICT-supported

on ICTrolesin knowledgeprocesses Fig.8.1. Objectivistperspective \nowledge can be shared.Figure 8.1 outlines the various roles that ICTs can play in and the interrelationshipbetweenthem. Theseroles .rnowledgemanagementprocesses, ;an be understoodto exist at two levels. The two primary, underpinning roles that ICTs can play in the management of knowl=dge,from which five further roles are linked, are flrstly, in the codiflcation of knowledge, ,nd secondlyin the storageof knowledgein some repository.Intermediateto them are of categorizationand differentiation,whete distinctions are made between :he processes :re discretepiecesof codifled knowledgethat exist,basedon some systemof categoriza::on. Once the codifled knowledge that exists has been through these processes,ICT j-.'stemscan then play a key role in utilizing these frameworksfor the storageof knowl=Jge.Thus, for example, structured electronic databasesrepresentone example of an -CT-basedknowledge rePository. .\s illustrated in Figure8.1, linked to from these roles, are five further ways in which , -Ts can be usedto managean organization'sknowledge(seeTable8.1).For example,one : rmmon use of searchenginesis for finding people within directoriesof expertise(thus .::e searchrole is underpinned by an electronic stolagesystem,where the expertiseof :-levant people is categorizedand structured into a searchableelectronic database). -.rother example would be where Lotus Notes (a type of groupware technology) were -sedin a multidisclplinary project team for the sharingand simultaneousintegration of by different project team members. :.e knowledgepossessed

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S Table 8.1. ICTapplicationsrelevantto knowledgemanagementroles Knowledge management roles

ICT application

Searching forlFindingKnowledge

SearchEngines, Web Portals

CreatingKnowledge

CAD(computer-aided design)Systems

U t i l i z i nK gn o w l e d g e

DecisionSupportSystems

SharingKnowledge

Intranets, e-mail

Integrating Knowledge

Groupware

Internetsearchenginessuchas Googlearegoodexamplesoftechnologies that canbe usedfor information/knowledge searching. Suchtechnologies makethe internetusefulthroughprovidinga way of identifying relevantsourcesof knowledgeon requestedtopics.what advantages and disadvantages haveyou personallyfound from usingthem?Are theseadvantages anddlsadvantages likelyto alsobe applicable to organizationally basedsearchengines?

As outlined in Chapter 4, there was a strong emphasison ICTsin many of the earliest knowledgemanagementinitiatives. This was,to a large extent because,at that time, the obiectivist perspectiveon knowledge was popular and widely accepted.However, the introduction to Part 2 of the book (p. 41-2) showed how a large proportion of these technology led initiatives failed becausethey focusedalmost exclusivelyon technological issuesand typically, played down, if not completely ignored, social/ cultural, and political factorswhich have sincebeen shown to be key in influencing the willingnessof people to participatein knowledgemanagementinitiatives. However,as can be seenby the examplefrom Nortel Networksdescribedbeloq sucha neglect,while being common, is not intrinsic to ICT-basedknowledgemanagementinitiatives. Therefore,technologybasedknowledgemanagementinitiatives do rzofhave to be technology led projectswhen they arebeing designedand implemented.This issuewill alsobe returnedto in the penultimate sectionof the chaoter.

Nortel network: lGTsand knowledge management Masseyet al. (2002)examinedhow NortelNetworksuseda 'processoriented'knowledge management strategyto successfully (NPD)process. re-engineer its new productdevelopment Thiswas donethroughthe development andimplementation of a knowledge management tool called'VirtualMentor',which was describedas an electronicperformance supportsystem (EPSS). This systemlinkedtogetherall relevant'disparateknowledgeresources' that were relevantto their productdevelopment process(including internalknowledgeand expertise,

at'rAGE\iiN :S rND KNOl\LEDGElv1

r

@

-:.t1'aShigh|ydlspersed,aswe|laScustomerknowledge,andre|evant,archivedhistorlca| :...eqge).VirtualMentorwasdesignedtobeofvaluetothethreecategoriesofworkerthey - = . : , e d a S b e i n g k e y t o t h e N P D p r o c e s s : i d e a g e n e r a t o r s , d eth:.:::^ni:tt c i s i o n - m a kofe the r s , aevolvtng ndprocessownthe tracking the people responsiblefor ,.- r,ocess owners being :]crocess.Massey"..'.u,.nu"thatthedeve|opmentandimplementationofthissystemwas :.;^ificantfactorintheeconomicsuccessthatNortelNetworksexperiencedbetweenlgg4and '']'oneofthecentralelementstothesuccessofthiSprojectWaSthatwhileitwasatechnology. '.:rknowledgemanagementproject'technologicalissuesdidt:t1"1:t*lnstead'Nortel - ' . ' , ' o r k s b e g a n b y d e f i n i n g t h e s t a g e s i n t h e i r N P D p r o c e s s and ' b e { o r e c o n sVirtual i d e r i nMentor gthepeoplespecification designof ir.]l.process,The technical = ::ed issuesflowing tron.l project stage in their NPD re-engineering =: ihus the third and final

of **h"'i't'ns*;;;';;';"'' '111":Ti:::j:n.t:::1::JHHli"J:tandins used? :cmpatibre :-',:i;:;:::iil:1il:'Ji;il##;;;', commonrv most s *nonapproach

ffi|edgemanagementSyStemwaSthatthetechno|ogywasdesignedto

perspective on knowledge of this technology-based \\-hile the widespread criticism in it (seethe following section a number of severelimitaiions :-Laoog€fir€ntrru, .rpor.d perspectives ::rabriefdiscussionoftheseissues)'evidencesuggeststhattheknowl;dSemanagement are still .rrru.olio in an objectivist-based organizations many of aitiatives rknowledge,andthatsomeoftheseorganizationshavebeensuccessfulintheirknowl:jgemana$ementinitlatives'Consider'forexample'thecaseofGlobalBank'slTsupport Networks' iust examined' 2 (seepp' 24-Si' andNortel Chapter in described litiative by the UK concodification proiect undertaken knowledge the inctuder . lrther examples )jltingfirmexamineouylr,tonis(2001);themediaorganizationexaminedbyRobertson of its 1002),whoseknowledgemanagementsyster[wasi,,"e,sen.easearchablerepositoryof Bank' where the obiectives kr'o*-t'ow; and' the World u"i expertise :mployee inowledgemanagementstrategyinthelatelgg0swastomakeitselfa'technology :roker,transferringtcnowleOgei-,o*o"tplacewhereitisavailabletotheplacewhereit 2002'3O)' ,s needed'(van der Velden

Practice-basedPersPectives lr.enovettheshortspaceoftimethatknowledgemanagementhasbeenregardedasan .npoftanttopictherehasbeenasignificantevol"utionintherolethatlCTsareConceptu. pelspective iust outlined, in such plocesses,The objectivist ilized as being able to play role in knowledge codiflto play a direct and significant irhere IcTs were conrideri aute ;ationandsharingpfocesses,whilestillbeingutilized,ismuchlessptevalentthanitwas : n t h e m i d t o l a t e ] . g g 0 s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e o p t i m i s m p o sand s e sthen s e d bstore y t h oand s e u shale t i l i z i nitg t h i s codify tacit knowledge, perspectiveregaroing the abilityio electronicallyhasalsolargelydissipated.oveltime,therefore,therehasbeenanevolu:ioninthinkingregardingtheroleoflCTsi'o,gu.'i,utionalknowledgeprocesseswhich

@

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S Table 8.2. Criticismsof the objectivistperspectiveon knowledge Criticisms of objectivist perspective on knowledge Overestimates extentto whichtacitknowledgecanbe madecodifiable extentto whichtacitandexplicitknowledgeare inseparable Underestimates knowledgeis f ragmented extentto whichorganizational Underestimates extentto which knowledgeis context-dependent Underestimates identon abilityfor knowledgeto be collectedin centralrepository Overconf

perspectiveson knowledgebecomemore fully embraced.As will has seenpractice-based be seen,the practice-basedperspectiveregardsICTs as having a lessdirect, but equally that underpin interperimportant role in supporting and facilitating the socialprocesses sonal knowledgeprocesses. The critique of the obiectivist perspectiveon technology, which to some extent underpins the shift in thinking regardingthe role of ICTsin knowledgemanagementprocesses, was outlined in detail in Chapter 3. However,it is worth $riefly restatingthe main points of this critique (seeTable8.2),asit helps in understanC^rgthe role that ICTsare assigned by those utilizing a practice-basedperspective on knowledge. Firstly, the objectivist perspective is criticized for overestimating the extent to which tacit knowledge can be codified, with the practice-basedperspective arguing that much tacit knowledge can never be made explicit. Secondly,the objectivist perspectivedoesn't acknowledgethe inseparablecharacter of tacit and explicit knowledge, which means that there is no such thing as fully explicit knowledge, and the electronic communication of any (partially) explicit knowledge will typically mean that its tacit components are lost, or not fully communicated and shared.Thirdly, it underestimatesthe extent to which knowledgein organizationsis fragmented,dispersed,and specialized.Fourthly, it is arguedto underestimate the extent to which knowledge is context-specific,which means that such knowledgeis difficult to remove from its context and be understood fully in a different context. Fifthly, and finally, to some extent as a consequenceof all of the above criticisms, the 'synoptic objectivist perspectiveis arguedto suffer from what Tsoukas(L996) called the delusion', the idea that it is possible to collect an organization's knowledge in a single repository. One consequence,flowing from this generalcritique of the objectivist perspectiveon knowledge,is that the role that analystsusing an objectivist perspectiveassumedICTs could play in knowledge processesbecamequestioned (Hislop 2O02b;Walsham 2001)' perspectivebelievethat the role of ICTsin the Thus, those writing from a practice-based knowledge in electronic repositodesis limited, as such knowlcodification and storageof edgeis strippedof the tacit assumptionsand valueswhich underpin it. Further, the transmitter-receiver metaphor of knowledge-sharing is regarded as inappropriate,as the sharing of knowledge does not involve the simple transferalof a fixed entity (explicit knowledge)betweentwo people.Instead,the sharingof knowledge

T E C H N O L O G IA EN S D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T :nvolves two people actively inferring and constructing meaning from a process of of pelspectivemaking and taking :nteraction(Hislop \OOZb).This relatesto the processes :rhich were describedin Chapter4, where thoseinteracting developan understandingof :he values,assumptions,and tacit knowledge which undelpin each other's knowledge rase (Walsham2001). Communication processesin such interactions,to be successful, :equireto be relativelyrich, open, and basedon a certain level of trust' The role which those writing from a practice-basedperspectivebelieve that ICTs can :lay in knowledgeprocessesis thus somewhatindirect, being relatedto facilitating and :upporting the social relationships and communication processeswhich underpin ,inowledge processes.walsham (2ool, 599), usefully summalized this by arguing that, computer-basedsystemscan be of benefit in knowledge-basedactivities . . . to support :he developmentand communication of human meaning.' Debateswithin the practice-basedperspectiveregarding lCTsand knowledge processes ',t'ithin

perspective,howevet, there isn't a consensuson the role that the practice-based This section examinesthree of the iCTscan ptay in knowledgemanagementprocesses. understanding of how those utiliza deeper provide iey debates,and will si"qultaneously pers,tectiveconceptualizethe role of ICTsin knowledgemanagement :1g a practice-based trocesses. CTsand perspective making/taking . he first area of debate relates to the question of whether ICTs can facilitate the rich .nteractionthat is usually necessaryfor perspectivemaking and taking processesto be .rccessful.Walsham (2001) answersthis question in the positive, and believesthat ICT:.rediated communication does have the potential to facilitate processesof perspective ::1akingand taking. Boland et al. (1994)alsobelievethat it could be possibleto designIT 'information technology can support distributed cogni)\'stemsto do this, suggesting, --ionby enabling individuals to make rich representationsof their understanding,reflect -1ponthose lepresentations,engagein dialoguewith othersabout them, and usethem to 'rform action.'(457). However, as will be seen later, Boland et al. argue that to do this requires a radical :ransformationin IS designphilosophies.DeSanctisand Monge (L999, 696) also take a :ositive view regarding the ability of ICTs to allow a rich form of interaction by arguing :hat rather than the lossof socialcueswhich occurswhen communicating via most ICTs 'by removing the :reing negative, that such a loss may in fact facilitate understanding, :lstraction of irrelevant stimuli'.

that peopleare lesslikelyto iudgeotherson communication of ICT-mediated : a potentialadvantage processof makinginitialjudgementsof the How does looks? as such factors superficial ,rtentially situations? and ICT-mediated situations :.-angersvarybetweenface-to-face

E

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES However, other writers are more critical, fundamentally arguing that the difficulties of facilitating rich interactions via ICTs should not be underestimated (Hislop 2002b).This is primarily becausethe lossof socialcues(tone and paceof voice, gesture,facial expression) which occurs when using most ICTs significantly degradesthe communication process,and limits the extent to which knowledge can be shared via such mediums (Goodall and Roberts2003; Roberts2000; Symon 2000). Further,there may be a limited role for ICTsparticularly in the sort of intercommunity knowledge processesexamined in Chapter 6. This chapter showed how knowledge-sharingin such circumstancesis complicatedby the lack of sharedidentity and limited overlapin the knowledgebaseof people.Thesedifficulties are arguablyexacerbatedwhen such knowledge-sharingis electronically mediated,asthe socialcuesthat areimportant to the sharingof suchfactorsare lost (Walsham2001).Mcloughlin and Jackson(1999)make similar conclusions,arguing that rich knowledge-sharingin virtual interactions is most likely to be successfulwhere there is a positive,pre-existingsocialrelationshipbetweenpeople. Finally, a perspective,somewhatintermediateto the abovetwo positions suggeststhat while ICTsalone may have a limited ability to facilitate a rich form of communication, they can have a role when combined with face-to-faceinteractions (Nandhakum ar 1999). Maznevskiand Chudoba (1999) reach such a conclusion in their study of global virtual teams, suggestingthat 'effective global virtual teams . . . generatea deep rhythm of regu'\ar face-to-faceincidents interspersedwith lessintensive,shorterincidents using various r,redia'(473). lCTsand media richness One finding that emergesfrom the abovedebateis that face-to-facecommunication has different characteristicsfrom electronicallymediatedcommunications.Looking in more detail,it can alsobe seenthat different ICTshave different communication characteristics (seeTable8.3). However,the characteristics and degreesof information richnessof different communication mediums,arethe subjectof disagreement,and arethe secondareaof debateexamined. In the information systemsliterature Information RichnessTheory (IRT) suggeststhat different mediums have fixed and static levels of information richness,where 'communication richness(or leanness)is an invariant, objectiveproperty of communication media' (Ngwenyamaand Lee 7997,I47). Further,this theory adoptsa rational choiceapproachto people'sselectiondecisionswith regardto the communication mediums they use,with people selectingthe communication medium most appropriate to the task being undertaken. From this perspective,it is possibleto rank different mediums in terms of their 'ob1'ective'Ievels of information richness, with face-to-faceinteraction being the richest, and e-mailbeing one of the leanest.Table8.3 is thus laid out to reflectsuch a ranking. However, this theory has been the subject of an increasing level of criticism, which questionsthe idea that each communication medium has flxed and objective information richnesscharacteristics.This is thereforewhy there is a question mark in Table8.3 besidethe ranking arrow.Insteadof communication mediums having fixed and objectiveinformation richness characteristics,as IRT suggests,others suggestthe leannessor richness of any communication processis something which emergesfrom the, 'interactions between the

T E C H N O L O G I EASN D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T of variouscommunicationmediums Table8.3, Characteristics

I

Medium

Communication characteristics

-uce-to-Face lnteraction

r Information voice,gesture rich(socialcuessuchas facialexpression, potentialfor rapid visible.Plus,synchronous communication, high-quality f eedback/interaction) o Most relevantfor sharingof tacitknowledge . Spontaneous/informal possiblewhen people interactions geographically proximate o Conditlons amenableto development of trust (otherfactorsexcluded) . Expensive when peoplegeographically dispersed

deo conferencing

elephone

E-mail

'

o lnformation rich(socialcues,andvirtuallyrealtime,synchronous medium) a

Fvnoncirro

a

Set up time inhibitsspontaneity

+^ co+ rrn

. Intermediate information richness(toneof voiceconveyssome Alsosynchronous, socialcues,but gesture,expression invisible. facilitating detailed,immediatefeedback) o Costvariable . Spontaneous/informal possibleirrespective interactions proximity of geographic e Canfacilitatedevelopmentof trust where face-to-faceinteraction difflcultinteraction difficult r o . r .

Suitablefor sharingof highlycodifiedknowledge Relatively low information rlchness(allsocialcueslost) (costunrelated proximity) lnexpensive to geographic with variable feedbackspeed Asynchronous, possibleirrespective interactions of Spontaneous/informal geographic proximity . Permanentrecordof interaction exists . Development of trust basedon e-mailalonedifficult

Information Richness?' Increasing

people,and the organizationalcontext' (Ngwenyamaand Lee 1.997,148).Thus the dchness of any communication processwill not be determinedby the technical charactedsticsof the communication medium, but will instead be shaped by a range of social and technical factors. Relevant social factors include the degreeof mutual understanding which exists between people/ the willingness of people to make the effort to communicate and under'low stand, and the abilities of people to effectively use a communication medium. Thus, richness' mediums like e-mail can be used for complex/ information-rich interactions if organizationsencouragesit, or people becomeadept at using it (Markus 1994;Ngwenyama and Lee 1997; DeSanctisand Monge 1999).Thus, if people are more comfortable and competent using e-mail, comparedto 'richer' communication mediums, such asgroupware,this may help explain the preferencefor e-mail reportedin a number of studies(Ngwenyamaand Lee 1997;Markus 1994;Pauleenand Yoong 2001,;Robertsonet al. 2001). Organizational level factors, such as the character of the organizational culture can also affect both the type of medium used, and the way in which it is used. Thus, if an

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES organizational culture placesan emphasison accountability and documentation, this may encouragethe use of e-mail, as, compared to other communication mediums this providesa good, documentedrecord of conversationsand interactions.Alternatively,an organizationalculture that emphasizesteamworking, openness/and good interpersonal working relations, may encourage the use of face-to-facemeetings, and telephone conversations.

Robertsonet al. 2001:explainingthe predominanceof e-mail Robertsonet al. examinedthe communicationand knowledge-sharing patternsin a knowledgei n t e n s i v eo r g a n i z a t i o na: s c i e n t i f i cc o n s u l t a n c yM . u c h o f t h e w o r k i n t h i s o r g a n i z a t i ow n as knowledge-intensive, and requiredmultidisciplinary project teams to share and integratetheir knowledge together.The preferred mode of communicationand sharing of knowledge was through either telephoneconversations,or face-to-facemeetings,which supporteda rich interaction. However,a surprisingfinding in the study was the significanceof the extent to which e-mailwas used, and the lack of use that was made of Lotus Notes, even though it had been implementedorganization-wide. Accordingto IRTtheory,groupwaretechnologiessuch as Lotus N o t e s ,a r e a r i c h e rc o m m u n i c a t i o m n e d i u mt h a ne - m a i l t, h e r e f o r et h i s t h e o r yw o u l d s u g g e s t h a t Lotus Notes would be of use for the type of knowledge-intensive interactionstypicallyrequired by the consultants.Robertsonet al. suggest that there are a number of socialand contextual f a c t o r sw h i c h e x p l a i nt h i s c o m m u n i c a t i o np a t t e r n .F i r s t l y t, h e c o n s u l t a n t sh a d b e c o m e a d e p t e-mailusers,and were ableto make innovativeuse of it. Secondly,few consultantshad invested the time to learnhow to use Lotus Notes,which createda viciouscirclewhere peopledidn't feel encouragedto make the use of it, as they were unsurethat otherswould be adeptwith it. Finally, the organizational culture,for a varietyof historicalreasons,also encouragedand reinforcedthe u s e o f e - m a i la , s o n e o f t h e m a i n m e t h o d so f c o m m u n i c a t i o n .

In suchan organizational contextwhat would management requireto do to persuadeits workersto makegreateruse of LotusNotes?

I CTsan d d eveIopi n g/retai n i n g tru st The final areaof debateand disagreementexamined,which links closelyto the first topic of debateexamined,is the extent to which trust can be developedand sustainedin social relations which are mediated by lCT-basedmodes of communication. The literature on this topic shows that the extent of face-to-faceinteraction that occurs between people affectsmore than iust their ability to develop an understanding of each other. It also affectsthe basic nature of the social relationship, and the extent to which trust can be developedand sustained.The debatein this areais over the question of whether trust can be developedand sustainedby electronicallymediatedcommunication alone.

I

T E C H N O L O G IA EN S D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T One school of thought suggeststhat it isn't possible to develop and maintain trust in social relations mediated purely by ICTs.Roberts(2000) thus arguesthat face-to-facecontact is a vital element in the establishmentof a relationship of trust. Researchconducted by Maznevski and Chudoba (1.999)reinforces this perspective,as one of the benefits for the successfulteams who used occasional face-to-facemeetings as well as electronically mediated interactions was that the face-to-facemeetings improved the social relationship and the level of trust that existed amongst proiect team members. Finally, the researchconducted by Nandhakumar (1999) on global virtual teams also supportsthis perspective.This researchexamined patterns of information and knowledgesharingwithin a global virtual team. The communication of the team was mediatedby a PC-basedICT systemwhich included desktop video conferencing, multimedia e-mail and groupware applications, which included an intranet and file transfer software. In this researchthe absenceof co-location was found to significantly affect the development of trust. The project team examined consistedof people who had never previously met, or worked together, therefore there was no pre-existing personal relationship, and initially trust was relatively contractual and weak. However, project team members actively initiated face-to-faceinteractions with other team members to develop a more personal type of trust. Overall, Nandhakumar concluded that ICTs in and of themselves were not adequatefor either the development or maintenance of trust in working relations. This conclusion can be illustrated with the following quotation from one of the project team members interviewed, 'to start establishing a relationship I think you need to have the physical contact more becauseyou have this indefinable thing about relationships and body languageand you don't get it in the sameway [in electronic interactions] . . . so . . . asyou do the teambuilding you need to have some physical contact' (52).

Pharma-co:communication within a virtual project team Pharma-co decidedin the mid-1 990sto implement a new information management systeminto functions(forfurther theirproduction sites,whichwouldbetterlinkthemto otherorganizational projectseepp.3a-5).Pharma-co's production detailson Pharma-eq,s siteswerespreadthroughout Europe, Asia,andNe,thAmerica, with thegreatest concentration of sitesin the UKandUSA.The projectteamset up to facilitate the designandimplementation management of the information systemwere from two UKandtwo Americansites.Thereforetherewas somenecessityto work A numberof different virtually. communication mediumswereusedto facilitate the development and knowledge-sharing including telephone calls, of socialrelations e-mail,videoconferencing, as well as occasional face-to-face meetings. The projectmanagerin particular andconferences, frequentface-to-face interactions with projectmembers hadto do a lot of travelling to maintain mediated from all sites.Whilethe projectwas ultimately successful in its work, electronically fora numberof reasons. Firstly, videoconferencworkingwasfoundto be difficult andchallenging, wereonlyavailable allprojectteammembers ingfacilities ontwo sites,so it wasdifficult to include project whenusingthem.Secondly, the developed a routineof havinga weeklyvoiceconference however, foundthatthismethod linkingallteammemberson allfoursites.Theprojectmanager,

E

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES Theseproblems are not exclusiveto the implementation of knowledge management systems.For example, Symon (2000), in discussingresearchon the use of electronic communication systems,concludesthat it is tlpically problematic to assumeunquestioningly that peoplewill be willing to usethesesystems.Orlikowski et al. (1995)alsoin relation to electronic communication systems argued that when such systems are not adaptedadequatelyto the socialconditions of the local context that there is a significant chance that such systemswill be underused.Finally, McDermott (1999) argued that a neglect of social and cultural issuesin the design and implementation of information technology runs the risk that such systemswill reinforce rather than transform existing cultures,values,and behaviour.

Globalbank:the problems in a technology led KM project ln Chaptersix (seep.76-7Jthe problemsGlobalbank with its intranetprojectwere experienced whichadversely described. Oneof the mainproblems, affectedthisproject,was thatstafffrom knowldifferentbusiness unitsdidn'tadequatelV collaborate with eachother,andsharerelevant partof the explanation for why this happened was that the project,whose edge.A significant on technooverallcoordination wasthe responsibility lTstaff,was focusedprimarily of corporate for the functions logicalissues,suchas whetherthe lT infrastructure in placewas adequately protocols required, for sitedevelopment, on the contentandstyleof the agreeing anddeciding intranetsites.Theprojectteam,whileacknowledging the cultureof autonomyandantagonistic competitiveness whichexistedbetweendivisions, did littleto improveor changethesesocial low as nothing Thismeantthatthe levelof trustbetweendivisional relations. staffwas typically whichexisted.lronically, hadbeendoneto breakdownandchallenge the historical antagonisms the resultof this was that a projectwhoseaim was to attemptto reducecross-organizational and knowledge-sharing, boundaries, and improvelevelsof intra-organizational communication insteadhelpedto reinforce the existingcultureof divisional autonomy.

However,being sensitiveto the socio-culturalcontext meanstaking accountof the specific and distinctive characteristicsof each organization. This therefore makes it difficult to provide a general checklist of prescriptions and answersabout how to be successfulin such ventures. What works in one organizational context may be completely inappropriate in another, different organizational context. A better way of dealing with this issueis not to try and give such standard,generalizedanswers.Walsham (2001)insteadsuggests that a better way to developan understandingof relevantsocio-culturalfactorsis to aska setof sensitizingquestion,such as: r What type of knowledge-sharingprocessesdoes the existing organizational culture encourageand discourage? . How do existingpower relationsaffectknowledgeprocesses?

L E D G Ei " l A N A G E l v l E i ' r T E C H N O L O G I EA SN D K N O l \

be possible to design ano been answeredit should then have questions these Once take account of these management systems which ;mpiement ICT-basedknowledge iactors.

An alternative design PhilosoPhY Bolandetal.(1994)aleoptimisticthatlCTscanbedesignedtosupportplocessesol oelspectivemakingandtaking.Buttheyalsoacknowledgethatachievingthiswillrequire asignificantshiftofemphasis-inSystemdelisnptrilosophies(Tenkasi,andBolandl.996). Thisisprimarilybecause'whiletheobjectivistperspectiveonknowledgeandknowledgesharinghasbeenwidelycriticized,itStillreplesentsthedominantparadigminthemainStleaminformation,y*.-,literature(SchulzeandLeidner2002).Thisismadevisibleby made by this literature: a number of the assumptions .obiectiveknowledgeexistsandistransmittablethroughwordsandlanguagewhichhas a fi.xedmeaning' and a signiftcant is-characterizedby consensus' gL'6e'n^i'7a-t^iorrs . The Rnowrbdgerlase6f knowledge-sharing unproblematic' common knowledge Uu*'"-uXittg olCTsystemsforknowledge-sharingarebasedonthetlansmittel_Ieceivermodel(see Iigure 2.1)' Fromthisperspective,systemdesignisconcernedwithdesigningcommunication c h a n n e l s t h a t m a x i m i z e s i g n a l / i n f o r m a t i o n r i c h(1996) n e s s aargue n d mthat' i n i mfrom i z e , naopracticeise,levels Tenkasiand Boland (Bolisaniand Scarso2000).Initead b a s e d p e r s p e . t i , , e , o e s i g n o b i e c t i v e s s h o u l d s h i fto ttofacia l i tlot a t eofpknowledge l o c e s s e s oinf pcomerspective *t o can't be-assumed have U.t*.."rr'p"opi. and making/taking surfaclng the allow that the creation of op"r, systems mon. This therefore requires values' and taken for granted assumptions' sharing of different "'iJ'p'"'u"ons'

Conclusion AsignificantnumberofwritelssuggestthatlCTscanplayanimportantroleinknowledge m a n a g e m e n t p r o c e s s e s ' H o w e v e t ' t h e r e i s a s irole g n i fthat i c a nICTs t d e bcan a t e iplay n t h einc oknowledge ntemporary literature regarding thJ to attempt knowledge *u"ur"*"t" Thus, rather than which this chapter ius .*amined. pIoceSSeS, the to management attempted to do justice persne;lr;,liris chapter has present a coherent and unitary

'"fT,:::'::;;:ii':"Jffi:liH'i"':"'J':';

in theearrv embodied rromtheoptimist

knowledgemanagementliteraturethatknowledgeplocessescaneasilybemediatedand facilitatedviatrreuseofadvancedlCTs.Thereisnow,thus,agleateracknowledgementof mediated by ICTs' of having knowledge processes the not insignncant aitticutties of onecontlastintheliteraturecanbemadebetweenanalysesutilizingobiectivistand obiectivist conceptualization writlng which utilizes an p..rp..iirr.s. practice-baseo

SOCIAA L N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES knowledge typically arguesthat ICTs can have an important and direct role in knowledge processes/for example in the structuring, storage, and dissemination of codifled knowledge.By contrast,writing which adoptsa practice-based perspectiveon knowledge, questionsthis role for ICT systemsin knowledge processes.This work emphasizesthe difficulty of both codifying knowledge, and sharing codifled knowledge electronically. Writing embeddedin this perspectivethus tends to suggestthat ICTs can have a more indirect role in knowledgeprocesses, facilitating interpersonalinteraction and processes of perspectivemaking/taking. However,aswas shown, it is deceptiveto presentthesetwo perspectivesasbeing unified, as within the practice-based literature there are debateson a number of issues,including the extent to which trust can be built via social relations mediatedby ICTs. The managerial implications that flow from these insights are quite significant. For example,if different types of behaviour are appropdate for the development and maintenance of trust in face-to-faceand lCT-mediatedinteractions, this affectsthe $.pes of behaviours and attitudes that organizational management should encourageand reinforce. Howevet,one generalconclusion that can be made on this topic is that, whateverthe role that ICTs have in knowledge processes,for such systemsto be effective, their design and implementation requiresto be sensitiveto the socio-culturalcontext into which they are being implemented. The danger of not doing this, as was well demonstratedby the high failure rate of the earliesttechnology led knowledgemanagementprojects,is that the chancesof such projectssucceedingare relativelylow.

REVIEW OUESTIONS

ii

Arguably,an either/orlogicpredominatesin much of the literaturewhich compares technology-mediated and face-to-facemethods of communicationand knowledge-sharing processes,where they are consideredto exist at the oppositeends of a spectrum,and where the use of one mode of communicationis regardedas being likelyto limit the extent to which the other is used (Woolgar2003).However,is this necessarilythe case?To what extent may the use of eitherform of knowledge-sharing supportand facilitatethe use of the other? For example,is it possiblethat the use of technology-based knowledgesystems, such as a searchabledirectoryof expertise,may also leadto an increasein face-toJace b a s e dk n o w l e d g e - s h a r i nmge c h a n i s m sf,o r e x a m p l et h r o u g hm e e t i n gp e o p l ef o u n dt h r o u g h u s i n gs u c hd i r e c t o r i e s ? When lCTsare used for know edge managementpurposesthere appearsto be a preference for uslngoff-the-shelfproductsand then attemptingto customize/modifythe organizational context, ratherthan customizingor designingtechnologicalsystems to be compatiblewith existingorganizational practices.Why is this the case? T h e c r i t i q u eo f I n f o r m a t i o n RichnesT s h e o r y( l R T )d i s c u s s e dc h a l l e n g e tdh e i d e at h a t a n y c o m m u n i c a t i om n e d i u mh a sa n o b j e c t i v ea n d f i x e d l e v e lo f c o m m u n i c a t i o rni c h n e s sa, n d t h a t i n s t e a dt h e r i c h n e s so f a n y c o m m u n i c a t i o pn r o c e s sw o u l d b e s h a p e db y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between people,and their skillsat usingdifferentcommunicationmediums.To what extent d o y o u a g r e ew i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t ?c o u l d t h i s a r g u m e n tn o t b e c h a l l e n g e d b y s u g g e s t i n gt h a t c e r t a i nc o m m u n i c a t i o m n e d i u m sa r e i n h e r e n t l yr i c h e rc o m m u n i c a t i o m n e d i u m sc o m p a r e dt o

T E C H N O L OI E GSA N D K N O W L E DEGI \ I A N A G E M E N T others,for exampre phoneconversations, wherevorcetonecanbe heard,ande-mair, which rsa purelytext-based medium?

A. Massey,M. Montoya-Weiss, andT. O,Driscoll (2002).,KnowledgeManagementin pursuitof Performance: Insights f rom NortelNetworks,,M IS Ouart r e ty, 2613:269-8g. Presentsa detailed analysr'sof a successful tcT-basedknowledge managementinitiatrve,which did take account of social/contextualfactors. J. Roberts(2000).'FromKnow-Howto Show-How?ouestioning the Roreof lnformation and communicationTechnorogies in KnowredgeTransfer',TechnorogyAnarysis and strategic Management, 1214:42943. Examinesthe difficurtiesof sharingknowredge,particurarty tacitknowredge,via rcrs. G. walsham(2001).'Knowredge Management: The Benefitsand Limitations of computer systems', EuropeanManagementJournat,1916:599_608. Reviews the literature on lr-based knowledge management, and concludesthat ICTscan facilitate knowledgemanagementefforts,but from a practice_based perspective. R. Boland,R.Tenkasi, and D. Te,eni(1994),Designing Information Technology to Support DistributedCognition',OrganizationScience,513:486_jb. Argues that lCTscan be designed to support and facilitate perspective making/takrng processes.

@

!ryffiffi HRMpolicies, culture, 0rganizational management andknowledge lntroduction As the introduction to Part 2, and Chapter 4 detail, social and cultural factors have been found to be key mediating factors,affecting the dynamics and likely successof knowledge management initiatives. This is primarily becausesuch factors have increasinglybeen recognizedas playing a fundamental role in determining whether workers will be willing to actively participate in knowledge management initiatives. Inevitably, this has led to organizations deliberately attempting to manage their cultures to produce appropriate knowledge behaviours. Overall this chapter examines two broad topics. Firstly, how organizational cultures shape the attitudes and behaviours of their staff to knowledge processesrand, secondly, the ways in which management can use cultute, and Human ResourceManagement (HRM hereafter) practices such as recruitment and reward, to produce appropriate attitudes and behaviours. The attitudes and behaviours that are relevant to knowledge managementinitiatives are outlined in Table9.1. Thus, the use of culture management and HRM policies can be seen to be concerned not only with attempting to produce appropriate knowledge behaviours and attitudes, but also with making workers committed and loyal to their employer, so that valuable knowledge is not lost through staff turnover Oeidner 2000).

initiatives management relevant to knowledge Table9.1. Attitudesandbehaviours Attitudes

Behaviours

o Positiveattitudetowardsknowledge managementinitiatives

o Activeparticipation in knowledge management initiatives

o Levelof loyaltyand commitmentto the andthe goalsit is pursuing organization,

. Havingcontinuous employmentfor periods significant

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES The chapter begins by examining the linkages between knowledge management, human resourcemanagement,and generalbusinessstrategies.The secondmajor section then shifts focus to examine the topic of organizational culture, and considersits importance in relation to knowledgemanagementinitiatives. The third and final section then considershow specificHRM practicescan be used to affect not only attitudes and behaviours to knowledgeprocesses, but alsolevelsof organizationalloyalty and commitment.

Linking HRM,business,and knowledge strategies Beforeit is possibleto articulatethe t)?e of HRM policiesand practicesthat can support an organization'sknowledge managementefforts it is necessaryunderstandthe type of knowledge management strategythat organizationsare pursuing. This is becausenot only is there an enormousdiversityin the type of knowledgemanagementstrategiesthat organizations can pursue (seeHendriks 2001 for a useful taxonomy), but crucially the HRM implications of thesedifferent strategiesare quite distinctive.This raisesa number of relatedquestionsincluding: what is the link, if any, between an organization'sknowledge management strategy and its businessstrategy; and how is an organization's business strategy related to its general HRM strategy. This section therefore examines how the strategiccontext (seeFigure9.1) shapesthe t)?e of HRM practicesand policies organizationsutilize. Before considering this topic further it is necessary to say that the knowledge management-strategyrelationship, as articulatedin the knowledgemanagementliterature, hasidealisticand rationalistic overtones.Thus, there areassumptionsthat businessstrategies are developedon the basisof thorough and objective analysesof the business/marketenvironment/ and that the implications of thesebusinessstrategiesarethen usedin a logical and structuredfashion to determine organizationalpractices(suchasHRM policies,IT strategy). In Mintzberg et al.'s terms (1998), strategyfollows the Design School or Planning School models, which neglectsthe extent to which strategyis ad hoc, emergent,basedon limited searchesand hunches,or that businessstrategiesare asmuch the result of political battlesas careful market analyses.Arguably,this is becausethe issueof strategyhas been given inadequate attention in the knowledge management literature (Zack 1999), and that as a consequencestrategymodels arethus relatively basicand unsophisticated.

Busrness strategy

F i g , 9 . 1 . L i n k i n gb u s i n e s s ,k n o w l e d g e ,a n d H R M s t r a t e g i e s

H R MP O L I C I E S A ,N D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T A number of writers and analysts suggestthat it is fundamentally important to link knowledgemanagementinitiatives to concretebusinessstrategies(Hansen et al.'J.999; Hunter et al. 2oo2; McDermott and o'Dell zo01; pan and scarbrough 1999; Skyrme and '\midon 7997).Zack (1999)suggeststhat this is the casebecausedoing so represents the primary way that such initiatives can be made to effectively contribute to the creation of economicvalue and competitive advantage.Thus, in relation to Figure9.1, the starting point in deciding on what t)?e of knowledge management initiative to implement should be an analysisof an organization's businessstrategyto identify the role of knowledge in it. The development of knowledge and HRM strategies should therefore be informed by this analysis and link back to the business strategy by deveroping and reinforcing it. Different vwiters have characterizedthe diversity of knowledge management strategies that organizations pursue in a variety of ways. Hansen et al. (1999), in what is one of the most well-known frameworks differentiate between two broad knowledge strategies: codificationand personalization(seeTable9.2).Thecodification strategyis most relevant for companies whose competitive advantageis derived from the reuseof codif,ed knowledge and is centrally concerned with creating searchablerepositories for the storage and retrieval of codifled knowledge. The personalization strategy, by contrast, is most relevant for companies whose competitive advantageis derived from processes of knowledge creation. The personalization knowledge strategy focuses on ways to improve the face-to-facesharing of tacit knowledge between the different workers who Dossess relevantknowledge. Hunter et al. (2OO2)develop an alternative framework that has four specificknowledge strategies(seeTable 9.3). The first two strategies,building and leveraging human capital, have in common the fact they are focusedon the development and use of human capital. The second two strategies,deepening knowledge processesand diffusing knowledge, have in common the fact that they involve the developmentof human processes. Their Table9'2. Codification andpersonalization knowledge (from Hansenet al. 1999) strategies Knowledgestrategy

Codification

Personalization

Business-Knowledge Link

Competitive advantage th rough knowledgere-use

Competitive advantage th rough knowledgecreation

RelevantKnowledge Process

Transferring knowledgef rom peopleto documents

lmprovingsocialprocesses to facilitatesharingof tacit knowledgebetweenpeople

H R Ml m p l i c a t i o n s

o Motlvatepeopleto codify theirknowledge o Training shouldemphasize the development of lT skirrs . Rewardpeoplefor codifying theirknowledge

. Motivatepeopleto sharetheir knowledgewith others o Training shouldemphasize the development of inter-personal skills r Rewardpeoplefor sharing knowledgewith others

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES framework, basedon an analysisof the knowledge strategiespursued by five large Scottish law firms, is similar to that of Hansen et al., in that the knowledge strategiesrelate to particular businessstrategies,and that, different HRM implications flow from each knowledge strategy.

Castcoand Swed-Truck:strategy and knowledge Castcoand Swed-TruckaTetwo organizations which had historicallybeen organizedinto separate and discrete divisions which had operated independentlyfrom each othel had interacted relativelyinfrequently,and which had little in the way of common standardsand working pract i c e s .I n t h e l a t e 1 9 9 0 ss e n i o rm a n a g e m e n itn b o t h o r g a n i z a t i o n bs a , s e do n a n a n a l y s i so f t h e i r changingmarket conditions,decldedthat this had to change,and that there would be organizational benefits from increasingthe amount of interdivisionalknowledge-sharing and through increasingthe degreeto which working practiceswere standardized. To achievethis, both organizationsembarkedon changeprogrammesthat involvedthe developmentand implementationof common,organization-wide informationmanagementsystems.Thesesystems not only required the developmentof common standardsand working practices,but also facilitatedinterdivisional c o m m u n i c a t i o an n d k n o w l e d q e - s h a r i n o .

Usingthe strategytypologiesoutllnedin Tables9.2 and9.3 classifythe type of knowreoge management strategyadoptedby Castcoand Swed-Truck.

Table 9.3. Hunteret al. (2002)'sfour knowledqestrateoies

Focus

Knowledgestrategy

Objective

H u m a nc a p i t a l

B u i l d i n hg u m a nc a p i t a l

Increase the amountof knowledgecapital possessedby the organization throughthe recruitment and retentionof staff.

Leveraging humancapital

More effectivelyutilizing existingknowledge capital,for examplethroughuse of ICT-based knowledge-sharing systems.

Deepeningknowledge utilization

lmprovingthe qualityof interaction betweenstaff to improvelevelof (tacit)knowledge-sharing and perspectlve g. making/takin

Knowledgediffusion

lmproveextentto which key knowledgeis diffusedand madeaccessible to all relevant workers.

fiumanprocess

H R M P O L I C I E SA, N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

-rw realisticis the strategymodelportrayed Doesit literature? in the knowledgemanagement process? and implementation :'esent too rationala modelof the strategy-making

Hansen et al. (1999) make clear that the HRM implications of the codiflcation and personalization knowledge strategiesare different, and arguethat it is thus important for organizationsto ensurethat their knowledge and HRM strategiesarealigned (seeTable9.2). for example, with the codification strategy, the main motivation issue is persuading rvorkers to codify their tacit knowledge, whereas with the personalization strategy it is related to persuadingpeople to share their knowledge with others. HRM policies and practicesthus needto be directedtowardsthe achievementof thesequite different obiectives.Thus, for example, in terms of recruitment and selection,it will be important to identify and recruit people with suitable personalities to these different knowledge activities (knowledge reuse versus knowledge creation). Equally, training and development implications also require to be different, with companies pursuing codification strategies requiring to emphasize the development of IT skills, whereas those organizations pursuing a personalization strategy require to place a substantially greater emphasis on developing the social networking and interpersonal skills of their workers. Finally, payment and appraisalsystemsshould reward behavioursappropriateto the organization's knowledge strategy.

Organizationalculture and knowledge management This section examines two interrelated topics: the extent to which and ways in which organizational culture can affect attitudes towards and participation in knowledge initiatives,and secondly,the extent to which appropriate, positive knowledge cultures can be createdby deliberatemanagement efforts. While there is generalunanimity regarding the importance of culture in affecting knowledge initiatives, as will be seen, opinions vary greatly on the second topic, which to some extent reflects debatesin the wider culture Iiterature. Before proceeding any further it is necessaryto define what organizational culture is. While every piece of writing on culture typically givesits own speciflcdefinition, a useful one is that provided by Huczynski and Buchanan (2001, 624),wtro define organizational culture as 'the collection of relativelyuniform and enduring values,beliefs,customs,traditions, and practicesthat are sharedby an organization'smembers'.This def,nition is useful asit highlights the collective nature of culture and also suggeststhat culture exists both at the level of ideasand behaviours.

members. byanorganization's shared andbehaviours Thebeliefs

@

@

SOCIAL A N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES As outlined below,and in subsequentsections,culture is closelyinterrelatedwith HRM policiesand practices.Thus, for example,a culture that emphasizesand encouragesactive partitipation in knowledge initiatives can be reinforced by HRM practices such as payment systems or training and development schemes. However, culture is not reducible purely to the HRM practicesemployed by an organization. Basedon the def,nition of culture used here it includes elements such as the general management style, modes of communication, degreeof formality in operating practices,all of which may affect attitudes and behaviours to knowledge management activities. For example, Kim and Mauborgne (1998) show how the extent to which organizationaldecision-making processes are deemedfair, and the extent to which workersare involved in them, which representsa fundamental aspect of organizational culture, can be crucial in shaping attitudes to knowledge sharing.

Creating appropriate knowledge cultures McDermott and O'Dell (2001) suggestthat the reason why cultural issuesare such a prominent reasonfor the failure of many of the earliestknowledge managementinitiativesis that organizationshave taken the completelywrong approach.Their casestudy evidence suggeststhat organizations which are successfulwith their knowledge management initiatives, 'build their knowledgemanagementapproachto fit their culture' (2001, 77).This is becauseorganizationalculturesare much more resilient than any knowledge management initiative, thus organizations which attempt to shapethe culture to flt with their knowledge management initiative, rather than vice versa,are likely to find that their knowledge management initiatives fail. Further, the successof such initiatives is also predicatedon organizationshaving suitableknowledgeculturesalreadyin place. To align a knowledge management initiative with the organization's culture they argue that it is necessaryto link it to both the visible and invisible elementsof the culture (see Table9.4). In terms of visible elements,the knowledge managementinitiative needsto be focusedon addressingexisting businessproblems,needsto match the existing'style' of the organization (such as the degree of bureaucratic rigidity), and that reward and appraisal systems should make visible the importance of appropriate knowledge

Table9.4. Linkingknowledge management initiatives to organizational culture(from M c D e r m oa t tn dO ' D e l2l 0 0 1 ) Visibleelementsof culture

Invisibleelementsof culture

KM initiativeshould link to existing

KM initiatives shouldlinkto core organizational values

hr rcinecc

nrnhlamc

KM initiativesshould reflect existing ^"^^^;-^+:^^^1 vtvdruzdLtuttdt

^+.,l^ >LytY

HR practices should link to appropriate knowledge behaviours

KM initiatives shouldlinkintoexistingnetworks of socialrelations.

H R MP O L I C I E S A ,N D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T behaviours. In terms of the invisible aspectsof an organization's culture, knowledge management initiatives should reflect existing core values, and should link into existing networks of social relations. In a similar vein Schulze and Boland (2000) argue that knowledge management initiatives are likely to fail if they involve the development and use of work practiceswhich are incongruent with existing work practices. Embedded in McDermott and O'Dell's analysis is a pessimism that large scaleculture change can be achieved, and that if appropriate knowledge behaviours are not a part of the existing culture, then it is likely to be very difficult to change the culture to make them so. An alternative perspective,which is the mainstream perspective in the knowIedge management literature, is that organizational cultures can be changed to produce appropriate knowledge related behaviours and values. Analysts based in the perspective therefore argue that one of the key tasks likely to underpin the successof knowledge management initiatives is the modification of an organization's culture in ways that encourageand support desired knowledge behaviours and attitudes (De Long and Fahey 2000; Ribiereand Sitar2003).

Do managementhow the powerto controland influenceorganizational culture,or is culture somethingbeyondthe controlof management?

Contrary to McDermott and O'Dell, Pan and Scarbrough(1999) arguethat appropriate knowledge cultures can be developed, but admit that doing so is a complex, daunting, and time-consumingprocess.Their argument is basedon a detailedexamination of one organization: Buckman Laboratories. This organization has arguably been a pioneer of knowledge management, and was one of the earliest organizations to actively manage and utilize its knowledge base to improve businessperformance. Buckman Laboratories has been relatively successfulin these efforts, and has, in the words of one top manager interviewed by Pan and Scarbrough(L999, 369), 'createda culture of trust encouraging active knowledge-sharing acrosstime and spaceamong all of the company,s employees aclossthe world.' This knowledge-sharingculture was somethingthat had to be built and actively developed via a culture change programme. Pan and Scarbrougharguethat key to the successof this programme was the role played by the organization's leader,Bob Buckman, who initiated and strongly championed the idea of developing a knowledge-sharing culture. The skills attributed to Bob Buckman by Pan and Scarbrough-of having a clear vision, a strong commitment to implementing it, and an ability to communicate it to others-f,ts closely with the typical characteristicsof charismatic leaders(Bryman 1992; Nadler and Tushman 1990).Thus, for Pan and Scarbrough,knowledge-sharingcultures can be developed,given adequatelevels of commitment and leadership from senior organizational management. Ribiere and Sitar's (2003) strong leadership is a key element to successfulknowledgerelated culture change. The difference of perspectivebetween McDermott and O'Dell and Pan and Scarbrough regarding the ability of management to deliberately manage culture change reflects

@

@

SOCIAA L N D C U L T U R AI L SSUES similar debatesin the wider culture literature (Ogbonnaand Harris 1998).One factor that complicates the management of culture is the existenceof subcultures,which may have their own interestsand value systems,and whose strengthof identity can affectattitudes to change(Harrisand ogbonna 1998;Hofstede1998;Sackmanr99z). A weaknessof the knowledgemanagementliterature that examinesculture is that the issueof subcultures, and how they may affect attempts to develop appropdate knowledge cultures, is relativelyneglected(De Long and Fahey2000 being one of the rare exceptions).

HRM policiesand practices As outlined in the introduction, the human and socialaspectsof knowledgeprocesses are related to and affectedby more than simply the attitudes and behaviours of staff towards theseparticular activities.Of equal importanceis the more generalattitude of employees towardstheir employing organization.This is for two primary reasons.Firstly,the level of commitment workersfeel towards their employing organizationsis likely to shapetheir attitudes and behaviours towards knowledge processes.Secondly, and equally importantly, the level of commitment that workers have for their employers shapesthe extent to which they are likely to continue working for them. The next section considershow HRM practicescan affect levelsof commitment and employeeretention, while the subsequentsection looks at how HRM policies can shapeattitudes and behaviour towards knowledgeprocesses specifically.This is an analytical separationonly, becausethere is a close relationship between employees'attitude towards their employing organization, and their attitude towards the knowledge activities of their emplover.

Employee retention, organizational commitment, and the psychologicalcontract Retaining workers who possessvaluable knowledge should arguably be as important an element in organization's knowledge management strategy as motivating workers to participatein knowledgeactivities.This is becausethe tacit and embodiednature of much organizational knowledge means that when employeesleave an organization, they take their knowledge with them. Thus staff turnover means an inevitable leakageand loss of knowledge (Leidner 2000). As Byrne (2001, 325) succinctly put it, 'without loyalty knowledgeis lost'. However,paradoxically,while many writers comment on the importance of retention/ very few knowledge management studies examine the topic of retention in any detail. An exception to this is the literature on knowledge workers, examined in Chapter 14. To examine the topic of retention it is necessaryto utilize the conceptsof organizational commitment and the psychological contract. Commitment was defined and discussedin Chapter 4. The psychologicalcontract representsthe unwritten expectationsor obligations that exist between an employee and the employing organization. For example, workers may have expectationsof work which is intrinsically interesting, high levelsof job security, or good promotion prospects.Most literature focuseson the employee's psychological contract, which is acknowledged to be highly subjective (McDonald and Makin 2000).

H R M P O L I C I E SA, N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

F i g . 9 . 2 .L i n k i n gt h e p s y c h o l o g i ccaol n t r a c to. r g a n i z a t i o ncaol m m i t m e n ta, n d o r g a n i z a t i o nbael h a v i o u r s The importance of the psychological contract is that the extent to which workers perceive it to be fulfilled (or not), oI the t)?e of psychological contract that workers develop, can importantly shape their attitudes and behaviour. The relationship between the psychological contract, organizational commitment, and attitudes/behaviours at work is summarized in Figure 9.2. Thus, the extent to which workers perceive their psychological contract to be fulfilled will affect their level of organizational commitment, which will in turn affect the attitudes and behaviours of employeesat work.

a workerandtheiremploying thatexistbetween and/or obligations expectations Theunwritten organization

A common distinction is made between transactional and relational contracts (Rousseau 1990;McDonald and Makin 2000;Morrison and Robinson1997).Transactionalcontracts are where the level of organizational loyalty and commitment workers have is limited, 1-here there may be a limited sense of goal alignment between employees and their employer, and where the emplo;zment relationship is regarded primarily in economic ierms. Relationalcontracts,by contrast, exist where there is a senseof goal alignment retween employee and otganization, where loyalty and commitment levels are significant, and there is an emotional as well as economic component to the emplo;zment :elationship. Flood et al. (2001) in a study of knowledge workers found that a positive psychological contract did result in higher levels of organizational commitment, -,rhiie Robertson and O'Malley Hammersley (2000) found that levels of organiza:ional commitment affected employee-retention levels and attitudes to knowledge :rocesses. The type of psychological contract and level of organizational commitment that -,r-orkers have has also been found to affect a wide range of organizational attitudes and rehaviours, including: . Controllable absences-higher commitment levels are associatedwith lower levels of suchabsences(Iversonand Buttigieg 1999;Somers1995) . ,in-role,behaviours,i.e. tasksand duties which are part of a wotker's formal responsibilities. Quality and timeliness of work likely to be positively related to commitment levels (Kim and Mauborgne 1993; Meyer et al. 1'993)

@

A N DC U L T U R AI L SSUES SOCIAL o 'citizenship behaviour', i.e. behaviour beyond a worker'sformal responsibilities.Such behaviour is positively related to levels of commitment (Coyle-Shapiroand Kessler 2000; Organ and Ryan 1995) Empirical evidence also suggeststhat when workers perceivethat there has been a violation in their psychologicalcontract,for examplewhen expectationsarenot met, this can have negative consequencesfor levels of organizational commitment and loyalty (Atkinson 2OO2;Coyle-Shapiroand Kessler2000). However, in the HRM literature this is an area of intense debaterelating to such topics as: the tlpical content of the psychoIogicalcontract-does it include expectationsof job security,careerprospects,etc.;is the psychologicalcontract undergoing change-are expectationsof job security declining (Smithson and Lewis 2000; Beaumont and Harcis2OO2);and have contemporary changes in the emplolment relationship given rise to a 'contract culture' where transactional psychologicalcontractsare typical?

ls job securitylikelyto be a significantpartof the psychological contractof manycontemporary over workers,or is job securitysomethingthat no one realistically expectsto haveguarantees any more?

The final issue dealt with in this section is the question of what organizational management can do to induce high levels of commitment and loyalty from their workers. Developing high levels of commitment is generally not simple and straightforward (Meyerand Allen 1997).However,empiricalevidencesuggests a number of factorswithin managerial control can affect commitment levelsincluding: levels of worker involvement in organizationaldecision-making(Gallie et al. 1998); the use of recruitment practices which attempt to achievea fit between employee and organization (Iverson and Buttigieg t999); and a general senseof equality (Burchell et al. 2002). Robertson and O'Malley Hammersley (2000) explain the high retention rate in the company they examined, which can be interpretedasindicating high levelsof commitment, asbeing relatedto the specificmanagementpracticesit adopted.Theseincluded providing workerswith high levelsof autonomy over their work, aswell asover their training needs,cteatinga culture of trust and involvement through having open and participative decision-making, encouraging extensive communication, and having a flat organizational structure.

Staff retention, organizationalcommitment, and HRM practices Buckand Watson (2002)reporton researchinto how HRM practicesin highereducationinstitutes in the USA affected levelsof organizational commitment and turnoveramongst staff. This was done throughpostaland web-basedsurveysof a rangeof institutions.They found that there was a positivecorrelationbetween levelof job enrichmentand commitment,but a negativecorrelation

A ,N D K N O W L E D GI \E4 A N A G E M E N T H R MP O L I C I E S commitment.Thus,commitmentwas most likelyto be betweentrainingand organizational job workerswithhighlevelsof autonomy practices suchasproviding through enrichment developed effecton commitment may have a negative of training However,the provision and discretion. of the theirawareness skills,andraising workerswith moremarketable levelsthroughproviding career. a multiplecompany benefitsfrompursuing

Forwhat othertype of examined? Towhat extentarethesefindingsspecificto the typeof occupation andwhat range of occupations/jobs a Thinkabout job is therelikelyto be expectations of autonomy? typical what are the For example, may be. them dolng workers psychological of the contract the jobs? of workersdoingroutineadministrative expectations

In conclusion, this section suggeststhat fulfilling the psychological contract and inducing high levels of commitment amongst an organization's workforce can contribute importantly to an ofganization's knowledge management strategy through helping to retain key knowledge within the organization. Secondly,there are a wide range of HRM and general management practices that can be utilized as a way of developing commitment levels in workers. However, as outlined in Chapter 4, a point worth reinforcing is that very few detailed empirical studies have been done on how workers' commitment (seeHislop 20O2a). levelsaffecttheir attitudesand behavioursto knowledgeprocesses

HRM policies and knowledge attitudes/behaviours This final section of Chapter 9 examinesthe role that HRM practicescan play in shaping attitudes to knowledge and learning processes.This is done through focusing centrally on the ideas and analysis contained in one challenging, interesting and stimulating book: BeyondKnowledgeManagementby Garvey and Williamson (2OOZ).This book considersin detail what an effectiveculture of knowledge-sharingand learning looks like, aswell asconsidering the specificHRM and management practicesthat can be utilized to facilitate such behaviour, and thus is of central relevanceto the issuesaddressedhere. The analysispresentedhereis alsosupplementedby the useof a number of other relevantbooks and articles. Characterizing an effective knowledge culture Before considering what HRM practices can be useful in supporting organizational it is necessaryto considerin more detail what constituteseffective knowledgeprocesses, knowledge and learning processes,and the character of organizational cultures that support them. Two key concepts elaboratedby Garvey and Williamson are the corporate curriculum and knowledge productivity (seeTable 9.5)' For Garvey and Williamson, a corporate curriculum which is necessaryto support learning and knowledge developnent is one which is respectful of existing knowledge, but which is simultaneously accepting of new ideas,knowledge, and frameworks. Relatedly,high levels of knowledge rroductivity are likely when people are able to modify, update, and transform existing inowledge through a process of critical reflection, dialogue, and experimentation.

@

S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S Tabfe 9.5. Corporatecurriculumand knowledgeproductivity(Garveyand Williamson2002) Corporate curriculum

Organizational-level climateandframeworkof valueswhichshapeboth attitudesto learningand new ideas,as well as what'sdefinedas valid knowledge.

Knowledgeproductivity

Individual-level abilityto producenew insights/knowledge, throughan opennessto new ideas,andthroughintegrating them with existing knowledgeand experience.

This involves not a rejection of existing knowledge, but a reflection upon it without either reifying it (an overemphasison tradition which createsa blindness to the new) or rejectingit (an inability to effectivelylearn from the past). Garvey and Williamson's analysisis fundamentally embeddedin the epistemologyof practice framework outlined in Chapter 3. Thus, knowledge productivity and learning are achievedasmuch through action, experimentation,and risk taking asthrough a process of abstract reflection and formal education or training. Further, learning is most likely to occur when the corporatecurriculum is egalitarian,and respectfulof all knowledgeand experience.This requires circumstanceswhere people are able to openly expresstheir opinions without fear of sanctions.Such circumstancescreatethe potential for open, critical dialogues through which perspective making and taking is likely to occur, and which provides circumstancesfavourable to deep-rooted knowledge sharing and learning. However,as discussedin Chapter 7, the embeddedness of power in the employment relationship,combined with the inherent potential for conflict that existswithin organizations,meansthat creatingsuch circumstancesis not likely to be a straightforwardtask. HRM practices and the creation of a culture of learning and knowledge development As with Pan and Scarbrough (1,999),Garvey and Williamson believe that organizational management doeshave the ability to put in placepracticesand structuresthat can encourage, support, and develop a culture of learning. To be knowledge productive requires a certain mode of thinking and is thus to some extent the responsibility of the individual. Thus,Garveyand Williamson (2002,125)make clearthat the first stepin being knowledge productive is for workers to develop a critical senseof self-awareness. However,there is also a fundamentally important role that organizations can play in creating a corporate curriculum that is supportive of such modes of thinking, Iearning, and working.

Rewarding (self)development G a r v eayn dW i l l i a m s o(n1 3 1d) e s c r i baeno i lc o m p a nw y h e r ei t sp a ya n da p p r a i ssayl s t e mi s u s e d to supporta learning cuiture.To reinforce the importance of (self)development activityby staff, workersarerewarded for bothmeetingcommercial performance targetsandfor undertaking and

H R M P O L I C I E SA, N D K N O W L E D G EI V A N A G E M E N T utilizingself-developmentactivities.To signalthe importanceof both these elements they are scheme and togetherconstitute30 per cent of a worker's embeddedin the annualappraisal/pay and staff are pay. Development needs are an intrinsic part of the annual appraisal/review, expected to provide evidence of the self-developmentactivitiesthey have undertaken.This scheme was regardedas successful,as it had a positiveeffect on the amount of time and effort staff devotedto developmentactivities.

to what extentls self-development, ul at encouraging Whilesucha schemeis likelyto be successf organizational of achievement focus on the therea riskthat it may distractworkersfrom a central goals?

pay,and trainingsystemscan be usedto encourage This exampleshowshow appraisalr appropriate knowledge and learning behaviours. Yahyaand Goh (2002) and Hansen et al. (1999)also conclude that appraisalschemescan provide a useful way of reinforcing the importance of knowledge-relatedbehaviours that organizationsregard as appropriate. Garvey and Williamson also argue that investing in training can help create an environment supportive of appropriate knowledge and learning behaviours, as such investments reflect a corporate curriculum which is supportive of learning. Howeveq for Garvey training, but should and Williamson training should not centre'narrowly'on skills-based instead be related to developing social skills of self-reflexivity, how to learn through experimentation and risk taking, and how to conduct critical dialogueswith others. The importance of training was also emphasizedby Hunter et aL.(2002).In their analysis/ training was most important for organizations pursuing a strategyof building social capital (seeTable9.3),where providing training representsone key way of doing this. Finally, Robertsonand O'Malley Hammersley(2000)alsoregardthe provision of training as one key way of creating a supportive knowledge culture. However, for the knowledge workers they examined this was achieved through providing the staff with the autonomy and resourcesto identify and undertake what they individually regardedastheir own training needs.

shapedby or aresuchskills/abilities/attitudes Canpeoplebe trainedto be knowledgeproductive, personality and intelligence?

pay and reward systemsprovide another avenue through which HRM practicescan be utilized to facilitate and develop appropriate knowledge cultures. As illustrated by the above example, this can be done through linking pay to development activities' It could also be achieved, as suggestedby Hansen et al. (1999), through rewarding knowledge behaviourswhich areconsistentwith the knowledge strategybeingpursued (seeTable9'2)' In conclusion,this final sectionhas outlined the role that HRM practicessuch astraining, appraisal, and reward systemscan play in supporting and reinfolcing applopdate

@

SOCIAL A N DC U L T U R AI L SSUES knowledgebehaviours.This thereforesuggeststhat managementhas potentially signiflcant scopeto affect the human, social, and cultural factors that are so crucial to the successof knowledge initiatives.

Gonclusion The central focus of this chapter has been on the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management initiatives, and has found the relationship to be both important and complex. The culture an organization has was shown to be an important factor shaping the attitudes of workers to knowledge initiatives, and the extent to which they are prepared to use and share their knowledge. One general conclusion emerging from the chapter is that organizationalmanagement,through shaping their culture, and utilizing relevant HRM policies,can influence the attitudes of their workers towards knowledge initiatives. However, it was also shown that there is an active debate on this topic, with some writers raising questions regarding the extent to which effective knowledge cultures can be achieved through culture management initiatives. Thus, McDermott and o'Dell (2001) suggestthat attempting to modify an organization's culture to fit in with the objectives of a knowledge management initiative is likely to be a recipefor failure. The chapter also showed how attempting to develop the commitment and loyalty of workers can be a key part of an organization's knowledge management strategy.This is becausenot only does the typically tacit and embodied nature of knowledge mean that when workers leave an organization they take much of their knowledge with them, but that the level of commitment a worker feels towards his employer is also likely to affect his willingness to participate in knowledge management initiatives (Hislop 2oo2a). However, developing such commitment and attitudes is by no means straightforward. Finally,the chapteralso illustratedthe importance-specificHRM practicessuch reward systemscan have in shaping the attitudes and behaviour of workers to knowledge initiatives. However/ as was considered at the start of the chapter, to be most effective, such practicesrequire to be effectively linked to the businessand knowledge management strategy being pursued, as different business and knowledge strategies typically have quite different HRM implications.

REVIEW OUESTIONS

,'i

i

.

,i:ir, riiii,itiij:

1 Do most organizations havea single,dominantculture,or is it more typicalthat they have distinctivesubcultureswith their own valuesand knowledqe?What factorsaffect the extent t o w h i c h o r g a n i z a t i o ncaul l t u r ei s c o h e r e n t ? z Some researchsuggeststhat money alone is unlikelyto motivatepeopleto sharetheir knowledge.Can pay systems be used to motivatepeopleto developor displaysuitable attitudesand behaviourstowards knowledgeprocesses?

H R M P O L I C I E SA, N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T are Garveyand g Giventhe embeddednessof power and conflictwithin organizations, to createopen, egalitariancultures Williamsonunrealisticabout the abilityof organizations where knowledgeand ideascan be sharedfreely?

'LinkingHumanResourceManagement and KnowledgeManagement: D. HislopQ0O2a\. Agenda',EmployeeRelations,2Sl2:182-202 A Reviewand Research attitudesand commitmentmay affect knowledge+elated how levelsof organizational Considers behaviours. Case An Exploratory (1999).'KnowledgeManagementin Practice: S. Pan,and H. Scarbrough Study', IechnotogyAnalysisand StrategicManagement,1113359-14' Presentsa positive casestudYof culture changeat Buckman Laboratories,where an effective knowledge-sharingculture was developed. 'Overcoming Journal to KnowledgeSharing', CulturalBarriers R. McDermott,andC. O'Dell(2001). of KnowtedgeManagement,5/1: 76-85. Considershow organizationalculture and knowledge management initiativesare interrelated. 'KnowledgeManagementPracticein ScottishLaw L. Hunter,P Beaumont,and M. Lee (2002) Firms', HumanResourceManagementJournal,1212:4-21' practices through Considershow knowledge managementstrategYcan be tinked to specific HBM firms' law large Scottish in studies case the analvsisof some

ff .;{:

Learning, innovation, and knowledge management These two chapters have in common a focus on deliberate processes of learning within organizations.However, each chapter considersquite different types of learning.Thus while C h a p t e r ' l0 e x a m i n e so r g a n i z a t i o n a l el a r n i n gi n g e n e r a l ,C h a p t e r1 1 h a s a m o r e s p e c i f i ca n d rarrow focus on processesof organizational innovation.However,this is not to suggest these :oo,cs are unrelated.There is obviouslymuch overlapbetween the chapters,as processesof n n o v a t i o nm a n a g e m e nat r e v e r y m u c h a b o u t l e a r n i n gH . owevera , s Meeuset al.(2001)argue, '.vhileinnovationprocessescan be characterizedas a type of learning,they representa very specificand distinctivetype of learning.lt is beyond the scope of this introductorysection to 'learning' 'innovatlon'. l e f i n e w h a t i s m e a n tb y t h e t e r m s and T h i si s p r i m a r i l yb e c a u s ea, s w i l l b e seen in each chapter,doing so is not straightforwardand involvesengagingwith debates and : o m p e t i n gd e f i n i t i o n s . Chapter10 examinesthe contemporaryliteratureon learningin organizations, lnterest in this predated s,lbject the explosionof interestin knowledgemanagementby a few years. However, :rere is an enormousoverlapbetween the subjects.In fact it is impossible(and inaccurate)to :efine learningand knowledgeprocessesas being separateand distinct phenomena.Tryingto :efine where learningends and knowledgeprocessesbegin is a futile process,as knowledge 3'ocessescan be characterizedas being about learning,or to put it the oppositeway, learning .rocessescan be characterized as knowledgeprocesses.One of the centralfocusesin Chapter'lO s the debate over the concept and characterof 'the learningorganization'that, as will be seen, :an be characterized as involvingtwo diametricallyopposedperspectives. '1 Chapter1 by contrastfocuses more narrowlyon organizational innovationprocesses,which ^cludesR&D activities,as well as what some peopleterm new product development(NPD).This :lapter starts from the basic premiss that innovationprocessesare fundamentallyknowledge :'ocesses, which is the way Nonaka,arguablythe most well-knownwriter in the contemporary ..rowledgeliterature,characterizes innovationprocesses.

ryffiffi andknowledge Learning management Introduction As Figure 1.1 indicates, a growth of interest in both learning in organizations and knowledge management occurred at very similar times. This is to a large extent no accident, and indicated the interrelatednessof theseissues.Ultimately, learning, whether at the level of the individual, group, or organization, is about improving and developing knowledgeability: changing ideas,values, and/or behaviours through a change or transformation in understanding. This can involve the acquisition and application of new knowledge/practices, the reconfiguration of existing bodies of knowledge/practices, refining existing knowledge/practice,or the application of existing knowledge/practiceto a novel context. Thus, while the precise relationship between learning and knowledge management is unclear, their relatednessis unquestionable(Thomas et al. 2001). The purpose of this chapter is to consider the ways the learning literature links with the topic of knowledge management, and how it can help to understand the dynamics of organizational knowledge processes. Given the enormity of the body of work on organizational learning this representsa formidable task. In the spaceof one chapter it is impossible to outline, let alone examine in detail, all the issuesraisedby the organizational learning literature. Thus, deliberately, this chapter narrowly focuseson the learning literature from the late 1990sand is further only concerned with how this literature relatesto the subject of knowledge management. Even with this narrow focus, the increasing overlap of interest that occurred between the learning and knowledge management literature between 1995 and 2OO2(on the importance of social and cultural issues,on group-level processes/and on social constructivist/ practice-basedperspectiveson knowledge-Easterby-Smith et al. 2000; Vince et al.2OO2) meansthat there is still much to examine. As with the generalperspectiveof the book, a critical perspective,is taken to the descriptive, prescriptive, and optimistic literature on learning which conveys the idea that it is relatively straightforward to become a learning organization. This is because,despite the rhetoric which suggeststhat all organizations are becoming learning organizations, there aremany who arguethat leaming is still something that few organizationsdo well or do at

@

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E I \ 4 E N T all (Farr 2000; Hedbergand Wolff 2001; Salaman2001; Snell 2001; Weick and Westley 1996). This chapter examines the factors that help explain why this is the case,and why genuine learning can be difficult to achievewithin the context of work organizations. The chapter begins by very briefly examining the difficulties involved in defining what learning is. After this, the next major sectionexaminesthe dlmamicsof learningin organizations, and the relationship betweenindividual, group and organizational-levellearning processes. The largestsectionin the chapterthen examinesthe debateon the learning organization concept,which provides a useful way of discussingsome of the key issues which link the learning and knowledge managementliteratures.As will be seen,issues raisedby the critics of the learning organizationrhetoric, such asthe need to accountfor power, as well as the broad context of the employment relationship, link closely with someof the key issuesdevelopedin Part 2 of the book, and in Chapter 7 in particular.

Characterizinglearning It would seemsensibleto begin the chapterby defining learning. However,such a task is by no meanseasydue to the diversity of deflnitions which exist. In fact, one of the characteristicsof the literatureon learning in organizationsis a lack of theoreticalconsensus (Berthoin Antal et al. 2OOl; Crossanet al. 1,999).Ironically, the only consensusin this T a b l e1 0 . 1 .T y p o l o g i e o sf l e a r n i n g Frameworks

Concepts/Levels

Description

LearningModes

Cognitive

Learningas a changein intellectual conceptsand f rameworks(atindividual or grouplevel).

Cultural

group-based Changein lntersubjective, values, conceptsor f rameworks.

Behavioural/Action based

Learningoccursprimarily throughactionfollowed by a processof criticalreflection.

Single-loop

Incremental changeswithina coherent frameworkof theory.

Double-loop

Learning whereexistingtheories/assumptions arequestioned and reflectedon.

Deutero

The highestlevelof learningwhich involvesthe processof learningand reflectionitselfbeing questoneo.

Individual

Changesin the behaviour or theoriesand conceptsof an individual.

Group

Changesln grouplevel,sharedunderstandings or practrces.

Organizational

Institutionalization at organizational levelof changesin behaviour/theory.

ln+^r^r^^^i,^+i^^^l i l r Lgr ur 9or i l aoLut

Learning level-for at supra-organizational examplewithina networkor sectoT.

Learning Types

LearningLevels

tol

L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T subiect areaappearsto be on the lack of consensusthat existswithin itl The heterogeneous and relatively fragmented nature of the literature on learning is partly becauseit is such a broad, multidisciplinary topic. Thus learning in organizationshas been written about by economists,managementscientists,psychologists,sociologists,historians,and anthropologists, all of whom conceptualize it in different ways. Thus, instead of providing a single definition of learning, Table 10.1 gives an overview of some of the most important ways that learning in organizations has been characterized (for a more detailedexamination of the different taxonomiesof learning which exist see Pawlovsky2001).Thesetypologiesale not examined in detail becausenot only do constraints of spacemake it impossible to do justice to the depth of debate,but the debateon et aI' thesetypologiesbecamesomewhatdormant during the mid-1990s(Easterby-Smith 2000).Thus, most of the contemporarylearning literature makesonly passingreference to these frameworks. Presenting such a summarized overview illustrates the complexity of the topic and the diversity of ways in which learning has been conceptualized'

The dynamicsof organizationallearning While the central concern of the chapter is on learning within organizations, this does not mean that there is an exclusivefocus on organizational-level learning. As will be seen, learning in organizations can be characterized as involving a d;,rramic reciprocity between learning processesat the individual, group, and organizational level. Before presenting a conceptual model that outlines the interrelationship between these processesit is useful to define and discussthe term organizational learning. Organizations can be understoodto learn, not becausethey'think' and'behave' independently of the people who work within them (they cannot), but through the embedding of individual systemsof routines,structures,databases, and group learning in organizationalprocesses, would learning organizational For example, rules,etc. (Hedberg1981;Shrivastava1983). transformabe where insights developedby an individual or group result in a systematic tion of the organization's work practices/values.However, it is wrong to equate organiza' tional learning asbeing simply the sum of individual and group learning processes(Vince 2001). Organizationallearning only occurswhen learning at the individual or group level impacts on organizational-level processesand structures. But such a transition is by no meansautomatic. For this to be achievableorganizations need to be able to sustain critical reflection on their establishednorms and practices.It is thus possible, as will be seenin the example of Hyder presentedlater in the chapter, that learning can occur at individual and group levels, but nofproduce learning at the organizational level'

andprocesses, structures in organizational learning andgroup-level ofindividualTheembedding in established values embodied and the norms modifying on and throughreflecting achieved processes andstructures. :rganizational

@

INNOVATION A N D K N O W L E D G EI V 1 A N AEGM E N T

Individual

Group

Organization

Feedforward

lntuiting Attending

I n d i v i ud a l

f+ Group

Interpreti ng Experimenting

ie

_o

E

Integrating

Organization Institutiona lizing

Fig.10.1.The modifiedCrossanet al. model(fromZietsmaetal.2002\

This complex interrelationship between learning at different levels is taken account of in the Crossan-Zietsma framework of organizational learning. This framework was initially devisedby Crossanet al. (1999), but was usefully modified by Zietsma et al. (2002)with the addition of two action-basedlearning processes to supplementthe more cognitively focusedprocesses of Crossanet al. The relationship betweenthe six learning processes and three levelsof learning in the Crossan-Zietsmaframework is illustrated in Figure10.1. Descriptions of the learning processesrand the levels at which they exist are outlined in Table 10.2. In the framework, the six learning processeslink the three levels of learning through two opposing dy'namics:feed forward and feedbackloops. The feed forward loop, alternatively referredto asan exploration-based learning process,involves the development and assimilation of new knowledge. Exploration thus startswith individual-level learning, through intuition or attending, and then builds to both group- and organizationlevel learning through interpretation, experimentation, integration, and institutionalization processes.The feedback loop, by contrast, referred to as an exploitation-basedlearning process,involves the utilization of existing knowledge, whereby institutionalized learning guidesand affectshow groups and individuals act and think. However,while feed forward and feedbacklearning loops involve moving between learning processesat different levels, such movement cannot be assumedto happen automatically or unproblematically. Thus, for example, it can be difficult for someoneto take an individual-level insight, articulate it to a group, and for this to develop into a shared,agreedupon, collective insight. One of the core themes in the Crossan-Zietsmaframework is the tension that exists betweenexploration (the development and acquisition of new knowledge)and exploitation (the utilization of existing knowledge).This tension existsbecauseprocessesof exploration may bring into question, challenge,undermine and even replaceinstitutionalized norms

L E A R N I N GA N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T

@

Table 10.2. characteristicsof learningprocessin crossan-Zietsmamodel

Processname

Level

ProcessdescriPtion

lntuition

lndividual

processinvolving the preconsclous Cognitive of patterns.lntuitionis highly recognition experience. and rootedin individual subjective

Attending

lndividual

Action-basedindividualprocessof activeiy new ideas. for and absorbing searching

lnterpretation

roup Individual-G

personalinsightsthroughwords or Explaining process,where an actions.lt can be an rndividual theirown insights,or activelyinterprets individual insightsare a groupprocesswhere individual sharedanddiscussedcollectively.

Experimenting

Individual-Group

Attemptingto implementand utilizenew learning of change. throughactualpractices

lntegration

Group-Organization

and practices, sharedunderstandings Developing whichcanoccurthroughboth dialogueand action. coordinated

lnstitutionalization

Organization

action The processof ensuringthat routinized occursthroughembeddinginsightsin systems& processes organizational

(knowledgeand practice) embeddedin exploitation processes.This is a potentially serious 'learning that has becomeinstitutionaltension because,asCrossanet al. argue(1999, 534) ized atthe organizational level is often difficult to change.'Thus the institutionalization of to learning has the potential risk that such a processcan introduce rigidities and an inability unquesnorms institutionalized adapt and changethrough a blinkering processthat leaves tioned. Thus when instituflonalized norms become powerful and dominant, for example 'competency traps' through being successful,they can turn into what has been defined as rvhereorganizationsbecome locked in to previously successfulloutines through not noti1995; cing or effectively accounting for changed ctucumstances(Bettis and Prahalad of Levinthal and March 1993).To help explain the Crossan/Zietsmaframework, an example below. its application is presentedimmediately

Resistingand embracing learning:the case of MacMillan Bloedel

]etsmaeta|.(2002)presentaninterestingcasestudyofanorganizationwhichfor|ongperiods MacMillan a radicaltransformation undertook ::tively resistedchange,but which eventually of vanguard which for a longtime was in the forestrycompany, I cedel(MB)is a Canadian 'clearcutting'forestry andwidespread inthefaceof extensive management ::fendingthe useof was becauseMB this framework CroSSan the of In terms froma rangeof protesters. :coosition and utilization the involved which learningprocesses, ,,,asfocusedon exptorationfieedback

@

A N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T INNOVATION norms were extremely refinementof existingpracticesand values.In MB, these institutionalized powerful and dominant,which activelylnhibited,if not prevented,feed forward, or explorationt h e e x i s t i n gv a l u e si n a n y w a y . I n M B t h i s m e a n t t h e l o g l co f b a s e dl e a r n i n gw h i c h c h a l l e n g e d clear-cuttingforestrymanagementwas never seriouslyquestioned.This occurredbecauseMB 'legitlmacy trap', developeda specificform of competencytrap, which Zietsmaet al. labelleda o f an a r g u m e n t s . l e g i t i m a c yt r a p o c c u r s w h e r e t h e w h i c h s i g n i f i c a n t l iyn h i b i t e dl e a r n i n g A to are ignoredor regardedas worthlessas the legitimacyof the group/individual individual/group protesters make relevantargumentsare questioned.In the case of MB, the argumentsof the techthe detailed not understand did they were disregardedas seniormanagementbelievedthat of arguments to the nlcaland economicfactorsaffectingforestrybusinesspractices.Resistance l o t i o n a il s s u e s .T h u s ,m a n y o f M B ' s s e n i o r t h e p r o t e s t e r sw a s a l s o r e l a t e dt o i n d i v i d u a l - l e veem the protestersas they felt this challenged of arguments to the listen managerswere reluctantto and underminedthe moralityof their traditionalvalues and businesspractices.However over (including t i m e , c h a n g ea n d l e a r n i n gd i d b e g i nt o o c c u r ,w i t h v a r i o u si s o l a t e di n d l v i d u a lisn M B p u b l i cr e l a t i o n s t a f fa n df i e l dm a n a g e r sa) d a p t i n gt h e i rt h i n k i n gT. h i so c c u r r e dn o t s i m p l yt h r o u g h 'attending'(see a processof intuition,but also through an activeprocessZietsmaet al. labelas Table10.2),where these individualsactivelyengagedin a dialoguewith the protestersto develop a better understandingof their perspectiveand arguments.These isolated,individuallearning processesthen developedinto isolatedgroup-levellearningthrough processesof group-level interpretationand experimenting.This involvedgroupsof individualscoming togethernot only to practices. share their views, but actively experiment with alternativeforestry management with the viewFinally,after a new CEO was appointedthis learningbecame institutionalized, institutionalization This Ievel. at board discussed and accepted pointsof the protestersbecoming of learningbecame highlyvisiblewhen MB eventuallygave up clear-cuttingpracticesaltogether and shiftedto a differentstyle of forestrymanagement.

learningoccurrlngat of the new CEOto organizational-level How significantwas the appointment relatedto the attitudes learning MB? To what extentarecompetencytrapsthat inhibitorganizational in organizations? of seniormanagement and behaviours

The learningorganization:emancipationof exploitation? As outlined in the introduction, the literature on organizational learning is characterized by a diversity of theoretical perspectives.One specifictopic that has produced an enormous amount of debate and heated argument is the learning organization' It is worthwhile examining the contours of this debate,as doing so shedslight on somekey issues' crudely, those engaged in this debate can be classified into two broad camps: the visionariesoI utopian propagandistsand the scepticsor gloomy pessimists(Friedman camp,whosemost well-known and ploliflc writet al. 2001).The visionary/propagandists ers include PeterSenge(1990)and Mike Pedler(Pedleret al' t997), is largely dominated

L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T by consultantsand industrial practitioners(Driver 2002).This camp portraysthe learning organization as an achigvabfe.j_dealwith significant bgnqfits. for both organizations camp,which is largelypopulatedby academics, enOth-eiiworters.ftre sceptic/pessimistic .frafie.tgei'ihi, p..rp".tive and pours scorn on the claims of the learning organization propagandists(Levitt and March 1988; Weick and Westley 1996). Primarily these n-riters,with Coopey (1995, 1998)being one of the most incisive, arguethat despitethe emancipatory rhetoric of the learning organization discourse, in reality it is likely to provide a way to buttressthe power of managementand is thus likely to lead to increased exploitation of and control over workers, rather than in their emancipation and self-development. This section examinesthe two dominant perspectivesin this debate,simultaneously uncovering and focusing on key issuessuch as power, the natule of the employment relationship,and trust, which have been shown in Part 2 tobe key to understandingthe and which thus helps to link the learning and knowledge d;mamicsof knowledgeprocesses, literatures.

The learningorganization:the advocatesvision Constraints of spacemake it impossible to elaborateall the different learning organization frameworksdevelopedby its different advocates(Pedler,Senge,Garvin, among others). This section focusescentrally on the way Pedler et al. conceptualize it. However, there is much commonality to theseframeworks,therefore,there is a generalresonancebetween the broad characteristicsof thesedifferent models.Pedleret al. (1997,3) definethe learn'or.g_u1ttz;4tion which facilitates the learning of all its members ing organization as an, and consciouslytransforms itself and its co-ptex!'.Their learning organization framewuIpi3'aTjtt?ldboiatedfnto"eleven speciflccharacteristics(seeTable 10.3). A key element of this definition is that there is a mutual, positive synergy between the organizational context and the learning of its members.Thus in a learning organization,the organizational context should facilitate the learning of organizational staff, with this learning in turn sustaining and contributing to the ongoing transformation of the organizational context. One of the articulated orgaliza,lto;1a-l advantag,e.l.9l""th9Jg?,{Si+.9-9j93}-1.:9jl-93".!-T?-{ls: 'p--9o-g-!i,ng-en-gy-!he-,o-11-t9rp-qL!9 work is that it is qpprop_riate-, -t!-I-9..q,q-+-!,e.pP-olqly..!9!11--T.:... -

.

,-.

i

-.-

enViro-n-me.nf ?t beipg h-rgtr.1yeompetitlv*e--a:..d--t-U$--!l,l-9!J. rySSb_tSjnSgtly.,qfrg4qleripgd qlgS_ry-z*-i_o_ls 2001). 2000; Salaman Leitch and filrrison Jl-:"r.,"_il"-CU-.-h^.-cjrsiru.s*!-4-I-lqe.C organization wilh- the_1$-o-p-!-!o!--9f regr4leJo.contlnually-"adapt"apd..change, 1l-1e--1,9?rning possiure. on" oi ttt. itris bqing glguedte ma5-e*1"1ng"!h1!ai9"tttJf6-F.-.4: J1-qg,g,y_oft th4! thll-proJl-q-ql9--189!t lg3rniqggrgaqilqtiqp_ii!bS*{o:9",1!.9! it jq..flelible,-4ng "zAlt"g-l-sa,{yqltage,Implicitly (and qf 9-omp-e!it11r9 p-o.-siliqr,I *itn tfr. ability-to.qqtrlgy_e-44d!-e-t-ai!.4 of traditional asthe antithesis is regarded iimetimesexplicitly)thelearningorganization syslems liierarchicai and highly cenlla1ized tha"ing 9gl9?1cru.i"h.w-hlplr--erSrgCalqgg of managementand qonarol.Instead,the learningorganizationls typigallyconceptuallimited top down pgl_atively flat structure,opencommunicationsystems, ]-zedashaving4 (Driver 2002). working conditions control, apd autonomous

INNOVATIOA N N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T Table 10.3. The earningcompanyframeworkof Pedleret al. ('j997)

Focus Strategy

Looking in

Core characteristics

Description

(1) Learning Approachto Strategy

Strategymaking-implementationevaluation structuredas learning processes-for examplew,th experiments andfeedbackloops.

(2) Participative Policy-Making

Allow allorganizational members opportunity to contributeto makingof majorpolicydecisions.

(3) Informating

Useof lT to empowerstaffthrough widespreadinformation dissemination and havingtoleranceto how it is in+arnrata.l

anri

r rcarl

(4) Formative Accounting and Control

practices Useof accounting which contributeto learningcombinedwith a senseof self-responsibility, where individuals/groups encouraged to regard themselvesas responsible for cost management.

(5) InternalExchange

Constant, opendialoguebetween i n d i v i d u aal sn dg r o u pw i t h i na n organization, and encouraging collaboration not competition.

(6) RewardFlexibility

New ways of rewardingpeoplefor learningcontribution which may not be solelyfinancial, andwhere principles of rewardsystemareexplicit.

Structures

(7) Enabling Structures

Useof looseand adaptable structures whichprovideopportunities for organizational and individual development.

Looking out

(8) Boundary Workersas Environmental Scanners

The bringingin to an organization of ideasandworkingpracticesdeveloped and usedexrernally-anopennessand receptivity to learningfrom others.

(9) Intercompany Learning

U s eo l m u t u a l lay d v a n t a g e o u l esa r n i n g activities with customers,suppliersetc.

Learntng Opportunities

('lO) Learning Climate

Facilitate the willingness of staffto take risksandexperiment, whichcan be encouraged by seniormanagement taking the lead.Peoplenot punishedfor criticizing orthodoxviews.

(11) Self-Development Opportunities for All

Haveopportunities for allstaffto be ableto developthemselvesas theysee appropilate.

L E A R N I N GA N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E I V E N T

Learningorganization(propagandists) the learningof itsworkersandallowsthemto expressandutilizethis whichsupports An organization which environment throughhavingan organizational of the organization, to the advantage learning e n c o u r a g eesx p e r i m e n t a t iroi snk,t a k i n ga, n do p e nd i a l o g u e '

the However, the advocates such as Pedler are clear that the benefits of utllizing learning organizationframework areby no meansconflned to improving organizational and performance.Instead,an inherent element of theseframeworksis that management consequences articulated workersalikewill benefit from their adoption. In fact one of the workersare of utilizing theseframeworksis that the divisionsbetweenmanagementand organlikely to becomeblurred. As is clearfrom all elevencharacteristicsof the learning working of a creation the through ization framework (seeTable 10.3), workers beneflt where the environment where levels of participation in maior decisions ale high, be creative opinions of all are valued, and where there are opportunities for workers to and develoPthemselves.

learning? to organizatlonal structuresantithetical organizational Towhat extentarebureaucratic of supportive to, and (see conducive more 12) Chapter structures network \re flexibleor r r q a n i z a t l o nl ea al r n i n g ?

of such a one element, which is argued to be necessaryand centlal to the creation For 2001)' Snell (Sadler 2001; style rvorkingenvironment, is a particulartlpe of leadership and teachels' aS exampleleadersin learning organizationsrequireto be learnersasmuch style is necesthat they should also have loles as coachesor mentols. Such a leadership to alsomake but workers, of learning and sarynot only to actively stimulatethe curiosity contradictions the leadersSensitiveand responsiveto the opinions of wolkers. Howevet, organizational of the learning organizationadvocatesregardingthe role and style of that of this percritique the at looking when later managementshould have are discussed with the practice, in application its spective.Beforedoing this it is useful to illustrate resultsof this processpointing towardsthe criticismsof this perspective.

A learningorganization? -larrisonand Leitch (2000) applied Pedler's learning organizationframework to what they company,a small software developmentcompany' wnlcn :escribe as a knowledge-intensive hierarchy,and graduates. The company had a flat organizational :mployed a largeproportionof a surveyto used Leitch and Harrison siructuredwork aroundflexible,temporaryprojectteams organization' a learning ientify whether the company demonstrated the characteristicsof

@

INNOVATIOA N N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T The surveywas sent to three levelsof workers: the ManagingDirector(MD), senior managers, and projectteam members. Eachrespondentwas asked questionson both how thev perceived the companyto be, and how they would like it to be, with the differencebetween these scores representingwhat Pedleret al. calleda dissatisfactionindex. One of most interestingfindings was that a consistentdifferenceexisted,acrossall three levelsof the hierarchy,in terms of the d i s s a t i s f a c t i oinn d e x .T h u s t h e M D h a d n e g a t i v ea v e r a g es c o r e o f _ 1 . 2 a / oi,n d i c a t i n gt h a t h e thought the company exceeded his expectationsin terms of supporting staff learning.By contrast,the averagescore for senior managerswas 1B.2ok,while that for project staff was 3 8 1 o k . T h u s s e n i o rm a n a g e r s a , n d m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l py r o j e c ts t a f f , h a d d i f f e r e n tp e r c e p t i o n s regardingthe extent to which the organizationsupportedtheir learning.However, there was evidencethat the company displayedthe characteristics of a learningorganizationas the MD addressedsome of these concerns,despitehis own feelings.One areawhere tnrswas done was 'reward flexibility'(seeTable10.3),where issuesraisedby staff were dealtwith. However,there were other areasof disagreement,such as in relationto 'structures'whereno conclusiveresolution was achieved.Harrisonand Leitchconcludeby suggestingthat the consistencyof difference in satlsfactionlevels,'raisesthe possibilityof substantialdifferencesin internalpolicy-making and p r i o r i t i z a t i ow n ,h i c h w i l l b r i n gi n t o p l a yi s s u e so f c o n fl i c ta n d p o w e r r e l a t i o n s .( '11 3 ) .

Are suchdifferences typical?Towhat extentarethe interestsof workersand managerswith regards to learninglikelyto be in conflict?Further, doesthis suggestthattherearefew, true learninq organizations?

Arguably, though this is not how Harrison and Leitch see it, the differences in satisfactionlevelsfound could be interpreted as indicating that there are irreconcilable differencesbetween senior managementand workers,which make it likely that conflict will be inherent and unavoidable.This representsone of the main critiquesput forward by Coopey of the leaming organization framework, and is an issue that will thus be elaboratedin detail in the following section.

The learning organization:the sceptics' perspective The arguments of the learning organization advocateshave produced an enormous amount of debate(Easterby-Smith1997;Tsang1997).This sectionexaminesthe critique put forward by those who have been labelled the pessimistsor sceptics.The critique is structuredinto three broad, but interrelated areas:the nature of the employment relationship, the need to account for power, and how individual factors, such as emotion, shapepeople'swillingnessto learn. Commitment, trust, and employment relationship Central to Coopey's(1995, 1998) critique of the learning organization rhetoric is that there is a fundamental contradiction that is not addressed,regarding the power and authority of management.On the one hand, asoutlined previously,Pedler'svision of the

L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E I V E N T learning organization-characterized by the suppolt and encouragement given to open discussionand risk-free critical debate,as well as the importance of democratic decisionmaking processes-requires organizational managersto sharepower much more than in traditional organizations.However,on the other hand, Pedlertakesfor grantedthe legitimacy of both shareholder rights, enshrined in company law, as well as management's authority and right to managein their shareholdersinterests(Coopey 1995, 195)' Thus, while the learning organization rhetoric suggeststhat more democratic decision making is necessary,it doesn't explain how this can be effectively achieved. Given that empirical evidence suggeststhat organizational management is often unwilling to sharepoweq it is arguably unlikely that such a plocess will occur voluntarily (Boeker t992; Dovey 1997; Ketsde Vries 1991).

authorityto manageis enshrinedin companylaw,doesthis limitthe extentto lf management's can be madedemocratic? decision-maklng whrchorganizational

Coopey'sargument, which is compatible with the way the employment relationship is conceptualized in Chapter 7, is that within the socio-economic context of capitalism, power is structurally embedded in the employrnent relationship, and that this t)?ically places workers in a subordinate position to management. Such institutional arrangements are arguedto producea'democratic deficit'where the values,ideas,and interestof workers are largely downplayed and where the authority and knowledge of management is privileged and taken for granted (Coopey 1998). In such situations it is arguable that the vision of the learning organization articulated by its propagandists is unlikely to be achieved. Firstly, this is because necessarylevels of empowerment are unlikely to be granted to workers. Secondly,without such levels of empowerment the level of trust in and commitment to their organizations that workers have is likely to be relatively low lCoopey1998). Power,politics, and learning Neglecting to adequatelyaccount of power, politics, and conflict is another critique made againstthe learning organization propagandists.However, such neglect was $'pical of the majority of the learning literature until the mid-1990s (Berthoin Antal et al. 2001). Further, the propagandists not only downplay such issues,but ale t)?ically unwilling to even acknowledge that they are relevant to the analysis of learning processes(Driver 2002). However, since the mid-1990s, issuesof power and politics have been given a greater level of attention (LaPolombaraZO0l; Easterby-Smith et al. 2000; Vince et aI. 2002). The need to account for power and politics in learning processesflows from three closelyinterrelatedfactors(seeFigure10.2). Firstly, asdiscussedin Chapter 7, power and knowledge areintimately interrelated. Thus if learning is about the development and use of knowledge, then account needs to be taken of issuesof power (Vince 2O02).Coopey (1998) for example, drawing on Foucault suggeststhat managerial authority relatesto the inseparability of power and knowledge,

@

IN N O V A T I O N A N D K N O W L E D G EI \ 4 A N A G E I \ 4 E N T

The \ Embeddedness of Powerin the . i.-.-Employm enty', '/-

LEARNING

/

/t\

\ lntraOrganizational

\Conflict

__./

/'tne

lnter-\

Relatedness . of Powerand \nowledge_-,/

F i g .1 0 . 2 .L i n k i n gp o w e ra n d p o l i t i c st o l e a r n i n g

where management'spower is reflectedin the privileging of their knowledge, and vice versa.Secondly,as discussedin the previous section,the need to account for power in learning processes relatesto the embeddedness of power in the employrnentretationship. Thirdly, and finally, some argue that power and politics need to be accounted for due to the typical lack of value consensuswhich existsin most organizations,and the potential for conflict and disagreementthis creates(Huzzafi. and Ostergren 20O2; Salaman2001). This is another issuethat was discussedpreviouslyin Chapter 7.

Learningwithout a consensus Huzzardand ostergren (2002)examinedthe dynamicsof learningin a Swedishtrade union (SlF). where, during the 1990s,a lack of consensusexjsted over the fundamental objectivesof the organizatioa n s, w e l l a s h o w i t s h o u l dr e s p o n dt o s i g n i f i c a net c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a lc h a n g e sw h i c h underminedtraditionalnotionsof collectivity.In responseto these environmentat changessenior managementin SIF attemptedto implementa top down, centralizedprocess of learning,where t h e y d e s c r i b e da n d e x p l a i n e dh o w a n d w h y t h e u n r o nw a s c h a n g i n g . T h e i n t e n t i o nw a s t h a t t h r o u g ht h i s p r o c e s su n i o nm e m b e r sa n d o f fi c i a l sw o u l d c o m e t o a g r e ew i t h t h e c e n t r a l l vp l a n n e d changes.These changeswere characterized as generallymoving from a collectivistto a more individualistic orientation,from an adversarialto a partnership-based relationshipwith organizatlonalmanagement,and movingfrom a focus on issuesof collectivebargaining over pay and conditions to supportingthe career and work experienceof members. However. little evidence existedthat these ideaswere acceptedby localunion members and officials. Thus, despitethis initiative,members hada diversityof conceptionsof the union'sbasicvalues and identity.Huzzard and Ostergrenarguethat attemptingto developa consensusin such a contextwas not feasible.

L E A R N I N GA N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E I V E N T and that learningwould be more likelyto occur if the value djssensuswas embraced,and where ceopledevelopeda better understandingof the perspective of others throughan open process cf communication.

How typicalis the caseof SIF?ls valueconsensusunlikely in most organizations? Do conflicting cerspectives inhibitlearning? To what extentcanconflictsoperateas catalysts to learnino?

The critics of the learning organization rhetoric argue that taking adequateaccount of thesefactorsmeansthe vision of the advocatesis unrealistic, and that there are likely to be somestarkcontradictionsbetweentheir rhetoric and the way the adoption of learning organization practicesimpact on organizational relations. Thus, rather than workers having a greater potential for creativity and self-development, the use of learning organization practicesmay mean they are subjectto greaterlevels of control. Further,rather than empowering workers, learning organization practices have the potential to bolster and reinforce the power of management (Armstrong 2oo0; coopey 1995, r99g; Driver zo0z; Easterby-Smith1997).The adoption of the rhetoric and practice of the learning organization can be perceived as increasing the potential to control workers, because,as with the use of culture-basedmanagement practicesgenerally (Kunda lg92), itinvolves a form of socially based control, where goal alignment between worker and organization is achieved through persuading workers to internalize the organi zational value system (Driver 2002).such control systemsaremore subtle,lessvisible,and have the potential to be more effective than traditional bureaucraticmethods (Alvesson and wllmott 2001; Gabriel1999).

R An organization wheresociallybasedcontrolsystemsareusedto createvalue alignment aroundthe benefits to allof learning, whichhasthe potential to reinforce management power,andcontradict the logic of emancipation embodied in the learning organization rherorrc.

Somewriters however,concludethat conflict is not necessarily detrimental to learning processes,and that if conflict and differencesof opinion are managed and negotiated through a certain type of diarogue, they can actually facilitate rearning (coopey and Burgoyne 20oo; Huzzard and ostergr en 20o2). For example, conflict can facilitate learning if it is dealt with in a communication processwhich doesnot privilege any particular point of view, where people are able to communicate without fear, where the communication is a two-way process,and where ultimately the objective of the processis not to achieve a consensus,but for people to develop a greater understanding of the viewpoint of others' Suchprocesses thereforehave much in common with the processes of perspective making and taking outrined in chapter 3, which are an important erement of the practice-based perspectiveon knowledge.

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T Emotion and attitudes to learning The final factor that the learning organizationadvocatesinadequatelyaccount for is the role of emotion in shapingattitudesand behaviourstowardslearning processes. However, a growing number of writers now acknowledgehow emotion importantly affects the dynamics of learning processes(Schererand Tran 2001; Vince 2001). At the individual Ievel, learning can be regarded as potentially positive and exciting-discovering new knowledge, improving levels of understanding, developing more effective ways of working, etc. But, there is also a potential negative side-giving up the familiar, embracing some level of uncertainty-which may be anxiety-inducing for people (Kofman and Senge 1993). Learning is therefore likely to induce conflicting emotions for people. Learning and changing can also be understood to affect an individual's senseof selfidentity (Child 2001), which may be regardedpositively or negatively.Arguably, the attractiveness of defensiveroutines (Argyris1990)is that they provide peoplewith a sense of securityand self-identity(Giddens1991).Thus, a potentially frightening sideof learning is that it can be felt to involve giving up that which makespeoplefeel competent and secure.For example,in the caseof MacMillan Bloedelexaminedearlier,part of the reason why senior managementresistedchangewas becausethey felt that acknowledgingthe Iegitimacy of the protester'sarguments raised questions about the morality of their actionsand the company'sstrategy(Zietsmaet al.2OOZ). Learningcan alsobe understoodto have an emotional component due to the dynamic between individual and group or organizationallevel learning. Primarily, learning and changewill inevitably involve, to some extent, challenging the existing balance of power, interests,practices,and values.Thus, learning may induce hostility and defensiveness becauseof its (potential) implications: people may be scaredof challenging the existing norms (Salaman2001).As Cooperand Burgoyne(2000)argue,the characterof the organizational context will crucially affect the extent to which people will feel anxious and reluctant to raiseor introduce learning that is likely to challengeexistingvaluesand practices.Pessimistically, they arguethat few organizationscreatethe 'psychicspace'for people to raise such issuesin a risk-free and supportive environment, with, for example, levels of consultation in key decision-makingprocessestypically being 'pitifully low' (2000,876).In such circumstancesnormalizing pressuresare likely to inhibit the questioning of establishednorms, which may adverselyaffect the willingness or capacity of people to learn. Thus, Vince (2001)suggests,as a consequenceof theseideas,that issues of power,politics, and emotion are intimately related.

Conflict, emotion, and learning:the case of Hyder Vince(2001)analysedthe dynamicsof learningat Hyder,a multi-utilityand infrastructurecompany, which had evolved considerablyfrom its origin as Welsh Water. Hyder activelysupportedindividuallearning,and believedthat this would createorganizational learning.HoweverNO organizational learningoccurred,which was explainedby the intra-organizational dynamicswhich were

L E A R N I NAGN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T from WelshWaterinto Hyderhad shapedby issuesof powerand emotion.Hyder'sevolution the company emergingoverwhat the valuesunderpinning resultedin two broadperspectives a Welshutility,andthat it shouldbe shouldbe. Onecampsaw the companyas beingprimarily that Theothercampsawthe companyas a globalcorporation drivenbv valuesof publicservice. values. Peoplein bothcampsuseda rangeof methodsinattemptshouldbe drivenby commercial tacticsusedwas to Oneof the mainpolitical ingto maketheirview of the companyaccepted. simultaninitiatives beingdeveloped whichresultedin two competing developchangeinitiatives, by company driven idea of one to create the re-branding exercise eously.Onewas a corporate whichusedthe rhetoricof employeeempowervalues.Theotherchangeinitiative, commercial perspective. Verylittlecommunicasupportaroundthe publicservice to develop ment,attempted 'iron between asan curtain'developed betweenthecampsandwhatwasdescribed tionoccurred in both and suspicion level of anger increased the the senseof competition, them.Thisreinforced anddefensiveness of the other,andcreateda senseof entrenchment campsat the motivations to organlearning was notableto contribute Individual theirisolation. reinforced whichultimately partly by shaped This was dynamics. the existing it challenge learning as couldn't/didn't izational of challenpart of the dynamicwas the fearof the consequences as emotionsof defensiveness, disputeswere avoided of this,openand acrimonious gingthe statusquo.As a consequence to defendtheir (people pretended wereattempting publicly theydidn'texist,but simultaneously learning. actively inhibited organizational dynamics Thustheseorganizational interests).

viewpointsactivelyinhibitedorganizational-level an examplewhereconflicting Thisrepresents to at Hyderhavedoneto makeuse of thesedifferentperspectives What couldmanagement learning. learning ? activelyfacllitateorganizational-level

Conclusion The chapter has shown that the enormous literature on organizational learning which has been produced since the mid-1990s is of great relevanceto those wishing to understand the dynamics of organizational knowledge processes.This should be relatively unsurprising given the relatednessof learning to knowledge management. Through utilizing the Crossan-Zietsmaframework the complexity of the relationship between learning at individual, group, and organizationallevels was explored, showing how organizational learning cannot simply be regardedas the sum of the learning of an organization's wotkers. The chapter also showed how the concept of the learning organization has been the subject of significant debate, with its advocatesarguing that it provides both organizations and workers with many benefits, while the critics argue that the emancipatory rhetoric of the learning organization disguisesand denies the way in which the practices of the learning organization may impact negatively on workets, for example leading to increased levels of exploitation and control. This debate was not resolved, but it did provide a useful way of revealing the diversity of factors which making learning within the context of work organizations difficult and complex (seeTable 10.4).

@

E

INNOVATION A N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T Table 10.4. Factorsaffectinglearningin organizations Factor

Level

The emotional characterof learning

lndividual

Competencytraps and the difficulty of giving up estabtished

Individual-Group-Organization

vslt

te<

and

nrertirac

Thepolitics and power involvedin implementing learning and challengingestablishednorms

Individual-G roup-Organization

The interrelatednessof learning,knowledge, and power

Supra-organ izational

The embeddednessof power in the employment relationship

Supra-orga nizationa I

Theadvocates of the learning organization suggestthatcrlticalself-reflection andopen debateon normsandvaluesarefundamental to learning organizations. However, coopey (2000)suggestfew organizations andBurgoyne providethe 'psychicspace'wheresuch reflection canoccur.Doyouagreewith thisanalysis? lf so,whatfactorsarekeyin stifling s u c hp r o c e s s e s ? Compare thetwo definitions of the learning organization outlinedin the chapter. Whichdo youmostagreewith,andwhy? Oneof the maincritiques of the learning organization literature is thatmanagements are 'give typically unlikely to up' andsharepowerin the way necessary proper to facilitate learning andself-reflection. Doyouagreewith this?lf so,what,if anything canbe doneto persuade suchmanagers thatsharingpowerwith workershaspotential advantages for ali?

C. Zietsma,M. Winn,O. Branzei, and l. Vertinsky(2002).'TheWar of the Woods:Facilitators and lmpediments of Organizational LearningProcesses', BritishJournalof Management,l3:561-74. A fascinatingcase studY that examines the dynamics of organizationallearning processesand provides a useful modificattonof the Crossanframework. R.Vince(2001).'Powerand Emotionin Organizational Learning', Human Relations, S4llO:i325-Ej A useful examinationof the relationshipbetween individual-and organizational-level learning, which considers issuesof emotion and aower. r

power,politicsand ldeology,, J. Coopey(1995).'TheLearningOrganization, Management Learning,2612:193-213. One of the earliestand best critiquesof the propagandists'perspectiveon the learningorganization

,,Strategic o J. Thomas,S. Sussman,andJ. Henderson(2003).'Understanding Learning,,: Linking organizational Learning, KnowledgeManagementand sensemaking', organizationscience, 1/3:33'1-45. Linkstogether the topics of organizationallearningand knowledge management via an empiric4 case study.

I

a

Wffi*${' and dynamics lnnovation processes knowledge Introduction Qrgani4ational innovation is concerned with deliberately designing and implementing The importance changesto an organization'sproducts,services,structures,or processes. business context general, is the that to organizationsof such changes,and learning in fqt-eaUf frost-drganizations requires it. This business context, shaped by a variety of factorssuch as rapid and profound changein computer and communication technologies,aswell asprocessesof globalization and internationalization, can be characterizedas being highly turbulent. Thus, for the vast malority of business organizations the continuous development and implementation of innovations is necessaryto remain competitive. At a common-senselevel, innovation if often characterizedas being primarily a know-lg-dge.creationprocess. Thus, from this perspective, whether developing a new product, or transformingan organization'working practices,innovation is concerned withgoiilgbeyond the realmsof existingknowledge,and developingnew knowledgeand insights. This idea is challenged here. As will be seen,much organizational innovation is reldtively incremental in nature, involving the modification rather than transformation and replacement of existing knowledge. Further, while knowledge creation is an important aspectof innovation processes,so is the ability to searchfor and identify relevint external knowledge, apply existing knowledge to new contexts, understand and absorb unfamiliar external knowledge, and to blend and integrate different bodies of aremuch more than knowledge-creation know]edgetogether.Thus innovation processes processes. The generalcharacterof innovation processes(if its possibleto talk about the general characteristicsof such a diverse phenomenon) has evolved since the early 1980s.In general, innovation plocessesappear to be becoming more complex in nature and increasinglyinnovating organizationsno longer possessall relevant knowledge internally. Thus, the importance of developing external networks has increasedsignificantly, as has the need to integrate together diversebodies of knowledge.Thus, Lam (1997,973) suggestedthat, 'firms increasinglybuild cooperativeventures in order to sustain and enhancetheir competitiveness.'Becauseof thesechanges,this chapterhasmany issuesin

@

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E DEGM A N A G E M E N T common with Chaptel 6, on intercommunity knowledge processes,and with Chapter 72 on virtual and network organizations. The next section of the chapter provides an overview on how the literature on organizational innovation has evolved since the 1980s and points to three key elements to innovation processes.These are their increasing interactivity, the role of knowledge, and the growing importance of developing and managing diverse networks. While theseissuesare closelyinterrelated,the chapter proceedsby examining each one separately.

Gharacterizinginnovation processes can be examined in detail, it is Beforethe knowledgedynamics of innovation processes worthwhile making a few introductory comments on the topics of terminology, the diversity in type of innovation that exists,and flnally the evolution in the way that innovation processes have been conceptualized. As outlined, the central focus of this chapter is on the way organizationssystematically develop and change themselveswith the obiective of improving organizational performance. However, this encompassesa wide diversity of organizational activities from investbasicscientiflcresearch(suchaspharmaceuticalor chemicalcompanies ing in large-scale, undertaking researchon genetics),through the developmentand utilization of technology for the creation of new products (such as mobile phone companies incorporating photo and video functions into new generation mobile phones), to modifications in organizational processes(such as changing intra-organizational communication systems or developingknowledge managementsystems).A diversity of labelscan be utilized to including new product development (NPD),researchand develrefer to theseprocesses 'innovation' is used, as it is opment (R&D), and innovation. In this chapter the term generic enough to refer to all of the above types of change.

processes, of itsproducts/services. by an organization or transformation, modification, Thedeliberate 0r structures.

As should already be apparent, organizational innovations are extremely diverse in character.For example, they can=beincremental, where the scale of change is smali, or gdiCgl, where the innovation involves large-scaleand fundamental change. Secondly, innovations can be product/servicefocused(where a new product/serviceis designedor an existing product/service ii modified),91 process-focused(where organizational processes and/or structuresare modified). Finally, innovations can also vary in*their contenVfocus. For example, Lynn (1998) differentiated between technological innovations (where innovations are made through the utilization of new technological developments) and

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S (where existing products/servicesare sold to new markets). These !?I\9linn-ogations represent significant differences,as they importantly shape the character of innovation processes,with, for example incremental and radical innovation processesbeing significantly different. However, equally, there are a number of general characteristicscommon to all innovation processes, and it is thesecommon featuresthat areexaminedhere. While the literature on organizational innovation has typicatly been characterizedby a heterogeneityof diversetheoreticalperspectives(Slappendel1996; wolfe 1994), one of the dominant streamsin it is the stagemodel theory, where innovation processesare characterizedasbeing divisibleinto a number of discretestages(seeFigure11.1). Howevet, during the 1990sthis neat and linear model was increasinglybrought into question. As will be seen later, a number of writers, including Leonard-Barton(1995), arguedthat the problem with the stagemodel was that it disguisedthe extent to which these stageswere interrelated (for example,with design modiflcations occurring during implementation). More broadly,others arguedthat innovation processes were becoming more interactive in nature, increasingly requiring extensive and repeated interactions throughout the whole innovation processbetween a diverse range of actors from both within the innovating organization (such asfrom different sites,businessunits, and functions), and from external actors such as customers,suppliers,consultants,universities, and public and private sectorresearchinstitutions (Alter and Hage1993;Joneset al. 2001; Powell 1998). The need for the development and utilization of such networks flows partly from the increasing complexity of innovations, which means that organizations

:r_

ldea Conception

.t

Appraisalof\

\_r_

Needs

,-

-__,/

Design/Buy

lmplementaion

.t-l \\

n titutionalizat ion=]-\ Routinization_-_.,

F i g . 1 1 . 1 . T y p i c a lc o m p o n e n t s i n s t a g e m o d e l o f i n n o v a t i o n

@

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T

Utilizationof i n t e r n aal n d external networks

Diversebodies of knowledge typically

Fig' 11'2' Keycharacteristics in contemporaryconceptualization of innovationprocesses

increasingly no longer possessall relevant knowledge internally, and who therefore requireto developnetworkswith individuals and organizationsin possessionof relevant knowledge (cohen and Levinthal l99o; Lam 1,997;Sakakibaraand Dodgson 2003; Tidd et al. 2001).Thus, contemporarywriters typicalty conceptualizeinnovation processes as having three closelyinterrelatedcharacteristics: they are highly interactive,they require the developmentand utilization of networks,and they involve the utilization of diverse bodiesof knowledge(seeFigure11.2).

lnnovation as an interactive process The insight that innovating organizationsneed to interact with external actors is not totallynew (Lundvall 1988;Pavitt 1984;von Hippel rg76,19gg). But, a number of factors that emergedduring the 1980smean that the extent and intensity of such interactions has increased significantly. Swan et ar. (1999), for example, argue that advancesin ICTs and the move to virtual and network forms of organization mean that innovations are increasinglybecoming organization-widein scope,requiring intra-organizationalinteractions between different functions and businessunits. Meeuset al. (2001) suggestthat the growing complexity of innovations contributes to the increasinginteractivenessof innovation processes, as the more complex an innovation, the more likely it is that all relevantknowledgewill not be internally possessed. Finally,Jacquier-Rouxand Bourgeois (2002),drawing on the influential work of Gibbons et al. (rg94), suggestthat the changing nature of knowledge production in society, from narrow, disciplinary basedinnovations, to trans-disciplinaryinnovations helps explain the increasinginteractivenessof innovation processes. Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995)usefully capturethe characteristicsof the stageand interactive innovations model, and the contrastsbetween them, through the use of sports metaphors.For them, the 'stagemodel' of innovation processes is comparableto a relay race where the baton (innovation) is dealt with in separatediscretestagesby isolated individuals/groups,beforebeing passedon to those responsiblefor successive stages.By contrast, interactive innovation processesare compared to the use of a ball in a rugby match, with the ball (innovation) being moved towards the try line through collaborative

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S team-working, and continued interaction (such as passingor moving) between all the team's players. More formally, Meeus et al. (2001) define interactive learning as the continuous exchange and sharing of knowledge resources conducive to innovation processes, between an innovating firm and its customersand suppliers.This is a useful deflnition exceptfor the unnecessarilynarrow focus on customersand suppliers.As will involve organizationsinteractingwith a much wider range be seen,innovation processes of organizations.

processes whichare most importantin makinginnovation Of allthe diversefactorsidentified, interactive? more

The need for extensive and repeated interactions between organizations during innovation processesquestionsthe linearity of the stagemodel, and suggeststhat the involving discrete,sequentialstagesis oversimplistic.As notion of innovation processes becomemore interactivethe more likely it is that there will be overinnovation processes laps betweendifferent stages.One of the most visible ways in which this occursis in the blurring of the boundary between design and implementation activities. Thus a number of writers suggestthat the implementation of innovations can produce important of the innovation being implemented (Badhamet aI. 1997; changesto the characteristics LeonardBarton 1995;Swan et al. 1,999).An important consequenceof such dynamicsis that innovations require to be understoodasmalleableand adaptablerather than having fixed and objective properties.Thus, different organizationsmay adapt similar innovations in quite different ways. For example, two organizations may utilize the same etc.)in quite different ICT-basedknowledgesystems(suchas intranets,data-warehouses, the other customizesit while modification, ways,with one using it'as designed'without signiflcantly through collaborating with the systemsdesigner.

Interactiveinnovation in the energy industry (2002)investigated innovation activityin the energyproductlon and Bourgeois Jacquier-Roux paradoxically, asthe R&Dspendperiod 1998, 1985 and between in the found that and industries a simultaneous was went down, there production companies ingof the mainoil andelectricity (measured intermsof numberof in thesesectors of knowledge in the production overallincrease by the changein thesesectorstowardsmoreinteractiveThiswas explained patentsgranted), activitybetweenthe in innovation processes, wherethe levelof collaboration basedinnovation During markedly. increase production suppliers andequipment companies mainoilandelectricitv the changeshadoccurredin thesesectorswhichencouraged the periodexaminedsignificant privatization, combined and deregulation Primarily, spending. R&D producers reduce their to main on the pressure increased sectors,significantly in theseindustrial with a processof globalization performance, economic production to focuson short-term companies the mainoilandelectricity

@

@

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T thesecompanles Simultaneously, themto reducetheirlevelsof R&Dspending. whichencouraged theirR&D sustain way to as a partnerships suppliers withequipment innovation starteddeveloping had undertaken production companies effortsandoutputs.Priorto this,the mainoilandelectricity totallyin-house. virtually alltheirR&Dactivity production companies by the mainoil and electricity undertaken change strategy Thusthe increasactivities innovation during suppliers users and between inthe levelof interactlon resulted a c t i v i t i etsh a n g r e a t e r i n s u c h ole i n g s i g n i f i c a n t al yn, d w i t h e q u i p m e nst u p p l i e rpsl a y i n ga patents Thesechangeswere visiblein the evolvingnumberof beentraditional. hadhistorically production with the patentactivityof the mainoil and electricity grantedto thesecompanies, s u p p l i e risn c r e a s e d g r a n t e d p a t e n t s t o e q u i p m e n t rf c o m p a n i edse c l i n i n gw,h i l et h e n u m b e o r o l e s i g n i f i c a n tW l y h. i l et h e s ec h a n g egs a v ee q u i p m e nstu p p l i e ras m o T ei m p o r t a n t i n i n n o v a proa powerasymmetrystillexistedwhichfavouredthe mainoil and electricity tion activities companies), ducers.Thiswas relatedto boththeirsize(theywere typicallylargemultinational s u p p l i e risf s o e q u i p m e n t d i f f e r e n t t o a n da l s ot h e i ra b i l i t yt o b e a b l et o s w i t c ht h e i rb u s i n e s s desired.

However, some anecdotal evidence suggeststhat the use of interactive innovation has not been adopteduniformly in all countries.One of the basicassumptions processes of Nonaka and Takeuchi's(1995)analysisis that there are significantdifferencesbetween Japaneseand Western cultures with regard to knowledge, which results in the knowledge basesand knowledge processesof Western and Japanesecompaniesbeing significantly 'national systemsof innodifferent. Other writers arguethat what have been labelledas vation' exist, whereby the characteristicsof innovation processesvary significantly between countriesbeing shapedby the specificpolitical, cultural, social,and economic context which existsin different countries(Mauriceet al. 1980;Sakakibaraand Dodgson 2003;Sorge1991). Lar;-(1997)presentssomecase-studyevidencethat reinforcesthis conclusion.The case study examined by Lam was outlined in Chapter 6 where the difficulties of knowledgesharing during a collaborativeinnovation processbetween UK and Japanesecompanies were outlined. Lam suggeststhat part of the explanation for these difficulties was that the innovation processesutilized by these companies were significantly different. As touched on briefly in the illustrated example, the Japanesecompany utilized an interactive innovation processthat involved significant amounts of communication and knowledgesharing occurring between staff involved in all stages of the innovation process' Consequently, the boundary between the design and implementation phases was 'design'work happenblurred, as most staff were involved in both activities,with much ing during the 'implementation' phase. The innovation processutilized by the UK company was, by contrast/ much closel to the Stagemodel approach. Here, innovation was a vely hierarchical and sequential process, with staff tlpically working on one specific phase only, and with limited knowledge-sharing occurring between staff working on the different stages.Unsurprisingly, these differencescontributed to the problems experienced by these companies when they attempted to develop collaborative innovations.

A N D K N O W L E D G EP F O C E S S E S INNOVATION

philosophies exist,wherebydifferentinnovation systemsof innovation Towhat extentdo national particular countries? in oredominate

In conclusion, this section has shown that one of the key characteristicsof contemporary innovation processesis their typically interactive nature/ requiring innovating companies to intensively work with a wide and diverse range of organizations, gloups, and individuals. This characteristicof innovation processesthus links closely with the other key examined:the importance of networksand knowledge elementsof innovation processes processes.However,aswill be seen,and aswas discussedin Chapter 6, this type of working relationship is by no means straightforward to manage. Firstly, there is a need for some common knowledge to exist (or be developed) between collaborating partners. Second, such work can involve collaboration between communities that may have distinctive and divergent cultures or values. Thirdly, the type of trust-based social relations that are conducive to knowledge-sharingmay not initially exist. Finally, the tacit, context-specifrc, structurally and contextually embedded character of much organizational knowledge makes it difficult to share.These issueswill be examined in detail in the following two sections.

Innovation and knowledge processes This section examines the way the contemporary literature on innovation processes increasinglyacknowledgesthe importance of knowledge.Their interrelatednessmeans that it is quite uncontroversialto suggestthat innovation processesare fundamentally knowledge processes,involving the creation, utilization, management,and manipulation of knowledge. This is done in two contrasting ways, by examining firstly the influential work of Nonaka and his collaboratorson knowledge creation, and secondlyhow the general characteristicsof knowledge affect the dynamics of innovation processes. However,the interrelatednessof knowledge and networking issuesmeans that totally >eparatingthem into discretesectionsis impossible.Thus, some networking issuesare are consideredin the following lealt with here and, equally,some knowledgeprocesses iection on networks. Knowledge creation \onaka and Takeuchi(1995) somewhatambitiously develop a theory of organizational {nowledge creation that both explains why certain Japanesecompanies have been .uccessfulinnovators, and which attemptsto blend togetherthe best aspectsof Japanese .nd Westernbusinesspractices.This work has been developedand clarifiedprimarily by \onaka, along with a numbel of collaborators(Nonaka 1994, 1998;Nonaka et al. 2000, 1001). While_their theory is centrally concerned with the dynamics of knowledge ::eation, they also considerimportant contextual factors such as the most applopliate However,here the focusis primarily on , rganilational forms and managementstrategies. :reir conceptualizationof knowledgeprocesses.

@

I N N O V A T I OAN N D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T Nonaka and rakeuchi's theory of knowledge creation can't easily be characterizedas embeddedin either the objectivist or practice-based perspectiveson knowledge, as it embodies elements of both. Thus, while one of its fundamental premissesis the tacit-explicit dichotomy of knowledge (seechapter 2), simultaneously it emphasizesthe importance of human activity and social interaction to the creation and development of knowledge. In Nonakaet al''stheory of knowledgecreation, asillustratedin FigureI 1.3,interaction is required both between and within three separate, but interrelated layers.The first layer, SECI, represents the four modes of knowledge creation/conversion, with knowledge being createdthrough the interaction betweentacit and explicit knowledge (seeTable 11.1). The second layer, labelled 'ba', refers to the shared context in which knowledge creation occurs/with there being four types of ba, each one related to a specificmode of knowledge creation'Ba can be a physicallocation (suchasan office),a virtual space(suchasan e-mail conference),or a mental space(collectivelyshared ideas,values,and experiences).The third and final layer of Nonaka et al.'smodel refersto knowledgeassets,with there again being four categoriesof knowledge assetincluding: (l) experientialknowledge assets(tacit knowledge shared through

experience); (2) conceptual knowledge assets (explicit knowledge in the form of symbols and language); (3) routineknowledge assets(tacit knowledge embedded in organizatiional routines and practices) (4) systemicknowledge assets(systematized explicit knowledge). Thus' as per Figure 11.3, knowledgeis created through individuals collectivelybringing together their speciflc knowledge assets, within particular contexts (ba), with this contributing to the creation of knowledge through the interaction and combination of these different knowledge assets through the four articurated modes of knowledge creation.

(platformsfor knowledge

Fig. 11.3. The three layers of knowledge creation (from Nonaka et al. 2001)

INNOVATIOA N N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S Table 11.1. Nonakaet al.'smodes of knowledgecreationand type of ba ( fr o m N o n a k ae t a l . 2 0 0 1 )

Knowledge Socialization creation mode

Externalization

Combination

Internalization

Typeof knowledge linked

Tacitto Tacit

Tacitto Explicit

Explicitto Explicit Explicitto Tacit

Example

Wherea new memberof a work group acquiresthe tacit knowledge possessedby other

Wherean individual is ableto maketheir tacitknowledge explicit,for example tnrougna process of communication a n dd i a l o g u e with others

T h el i n k i n g togetherand of integration discretebodies of knowledge, to createa more complexbody of knowledge.

Wherean individual convertsexplicit knowledge, codifiedin documentation, intotacitand embodied knowledge, tnrougn applyingit to theirwork tasks

D i a l o g u i nbga

Systematizing ba is a virtual ratherthana

E x e r c i s i nbga i s the location where people actuallycarry out theirwork tasksand activities.

nrnrrn

momhorq

for example throughdialogue, ooservalon, or co-operative workrng. ba Originating A physical locationwhere face-to-face interaction occurs.

lhi6r ^6re^n.l r,,Lv, vv,rv"v'

interactron, thoughnot facenecessarily to-face,where mentalmodels, andtacitvalues ^^^ t,dil

a^ uu

^h^"^i Jt totEu.

^4.,^i^^l pIyJruor

^l^^^ vrous,

Forexample,new (lCTs) facilitate the transferral, of andabsorption explicitknowledge

Characteri stics of kn owl edge is to examine -nother way to considerthe impact of knowledgeon innovation processes :;1e characteristicsof knowledge. Three broad characteristicsof knowledge can be . jentified asinfluencing innovation dynamics: I r the degreeof tacitness; l, the level of complexity; : the degreeof relatednessbetweenbodiesof knowledgebeing linked together. is well recognized(Hislop The importance of tacit knowledgeto innovation processes et al. 2000), with some Krogh 1996;von .: al. 2000; Powell 1998; Senkerand Faulkner ,,.iterssuggestingthat the ability to effectivelyutilize tacit knowledgerepresentsa meas-:e of an organization'sinnovativeness(Leonardand Sensiper1998; Subramaniamand -nkatraman 2001).For Leonardand Sensiper(1998)innovation occursthrough interac'.,ns between people. This is becausewhen an appropriate form of communication ,.,,:sts,people are able to gain an insight into the knowledge of others. When such

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E IEVNI T insightsarelinked to a person'sexistingknowledgebase,new knowledgeand insightscan be created.Thus, innovation involves a processof creativeknowledgeintegration,which occurswhen a 'creativeabrasion'between contrastingviewpoints and knowledgebases occurs(Leonardand Sensiper1998, 118). The typicaUy tacit nature of much organizational knowledge means that the sharing and communication of such sticky knowledge requires detailed and extensive social interactions to occur in a context of typically trust-based social relations (Leonard and Sensiper1998; Subramaniamet al. 1998; Subramaniamand Venkatraman 2001). The was examined in detail in Chapter 3, impact of socialrelations on knowledgeprocesses and in the context of innovation networks is returned to again in the following section.

The role of tacit knowledge in new product development processes (200'1 processesin a and Venkatraman Subramaniam ) examinednew productdevelopment u t i l i z iem p o r t a n t t o s h a r e a n d f o u n d t h a t t h e i r a b i l i t y n u m b eor f l a r g em u l t i n a t i o ncaolm p a n i easn d products. of transnational was key.Specifically, theylookedat the development tacitknowledge whichcontainboth simultaneously for multiplemarkets, Theseareproducts thataredeveloped of localmarkets.Knowledge thatareresponsive to individual features, andfeatures standardized innovations. preferences important to such in differentlocal/national marketswasthus consumer by peopleovertime,through This knowledgewas foundto be largelytacit,beingdeveloped The transferraland sharingof experienceof workingwithin a particularcountry/market. processes. and Subramaniam such knowledgewas an importantaspectof these innovation required the useof richcomfoundthatthe effectivesharingof suchknowledge Venkatraman a ra y sw h i c hw e r ee x a m i n e da,n da l lo f w h i c hw e r ef o u n d m u n i c a t i omne d i u m sT. h r e ep a r t i c u l w amongteamswith members the use of face-to-face communication to be effectiveincluded: amongteamswith memthe useof face-to-face communication drawnfromdifferentcountries; and the use of extensivecommunication bers who had some overseaswork experience; two Thus,of the threemethodsexamined amongstprojectteamswhichwere not co-located. vialCTs. extensive communication interaction, whilethe thirdinvolved involved face-to-face

and preferences the sortof knowledgethat is alwayslikely ls knowledgeof localmarketconditions Cansuchknowledgebe to be tacitandwhichcanonlybe developedovertime,throughexperience? moreeasilv? codifiedandcommunicated

Hansen, in two separatearticlesexamining the characteristicsof knowledge-sharing suggeststhat the complexity of knowledge (Hansen1999) during innovation processes, and the degreeof relatednessamongstbodiesof knowledgebeing shared(Hansen2002) can crucially affect the dynamics of innovation processes.Hansen defined complexity in terms of both the degreeof tacitnessand interdependenceof knowledge.If knowledgeis

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S of it is not possible without some underhighly interdependent, a full understanding standingofrelatedknowledge.Thuscomplexknowledgeisknowledgethatisbothhighly found The sharing of complex knowledge was tacit and simultaneously interdependent. in relations existedbetween people involved to be most effective when strong trust-based theinnovationpfocess,asthesharingofsuchknowledgerequitedextensiveinteractions. Inlaterwork,Hansen(2002)alsofoundthattheinterrelatednessofthedifferentbodies processesalso affected the dynamics of innoof knowledge being utilized in innovation the that the interrelatednessof knowledge and vation processes.Howevel, Hansen found natureofnetworkrelationsamongstpeoplepalticipatingininnovationprocesseswele in the following section' inseparable'This issueis thus examined

usedin innovatton do to reducethe complexityof the knowledge What,if anythlng,can organizations processes?|scomplexknow|edgesomethingthat,byitsnature,isirreducibletoasimp|erform?

of different ways to examine the importance In conclusion, this section has shown two knowledge the processes:through examining knowledge to the dynamics of innovation the the characteristicsof knowledge' what processesinvolved, and through examining chapterhasalsoshowistheinterrelatednessofknowledgeandnetworkingissues.For example,thetypicallytacitnatureofmuchorganizationalknowledgemeansthatgaining of networks with people who possess accessto such knowledge requires the development relevantknowledge(Hislopetal.2000;powell1998).Equally,thissectionhastouched uponhowthechalactelofknowledgeaffectsthetlpeofsocialrelationshipnecessaryfor and the characterof social relations within effectively sharing it. Theseissuesof networks, section' them, are the central focus of the next Innovation processesand network dynamics netwolks of effectively developing and utilizinS As outlined previously, the importance ininnovationplocesseshasgrownconsiderably,duetoanumberoffactors.Firstly'innoin scale,thus requiring intra-organizational vations are increasingly organization-wide the functions and businessunits. Secondly, collaboration a*ongrt stafi from different growingcomplexityofinnovationsmeansthatallrelevantknowledgeisunlikelytobe possessedinternallybytheinnovatingcompany,requiringthedevelopmentofextelnal networkstoaccessruchknowledge.Thissectionexaminesthedlmamicsofsuch plocesses,andconsiderstheimportanceoftheroleofknowledgeinshapingthem. Diversity: network partners and relations Whenexamininginnovationnetworks,oneofthemoststrikinginitialobservationsis thediversityinboththet}?eofnetworkrelationsthatorganizationscandevelop (seeTable11.2),aswellastherangeofdifferentorganizationsinvolvedinsuchnetworks. Further,whenthesetwodimensionsarecombinedthishelpstorevealtheenormous diversityint}?eofinnovationnetworksthatcanexist.Thus,asillustratedinTablell.2,

@

A N D K N O W L E D G EM A N A G E M E N T INNOVATION Table 11.2. Formsof collaboration Type of collaboration

Duration

Gharacter

Relations Subcontract

Short-MediumTerm

market-based Canvarytrom short-term, relatlons to longer-term relations, contractual development. innovation suchas collaborative

Licensing

FixedTerm

agreementbetween contractual Fixed-term, where one companyprovldes companies, skills,and knowledgeto specifictechnologies, another.

Alliances Strategic

MediumTerm

whichcan relationship, A medium-term with a involvetwo or morecompanies, definedremit,suchas the specifically of a specificproduct. development

JointVentures

LongTerm

between relationship Long-termcollaborative whichcan be wide in two or morecompanies, time open-ended scope,andfor relatively penods.

network relations can vary from relatively short-term, low-commitment collaborations, to longer-term, more involved collaborations,such as joint ventures or mergers and alliances(Tidd et al. 2001). In terms of potential network partners there is also a bewildering diversity. Thus collaborationswith univetsities, or private organizationsmay develop research-based researchorganizations,as has been occurring in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industriesin the USA since the early 1980s(Powell et al. 1.996;Powell 1998).Secondly, companies can develop network relations with suppliers (see Jacquier-Roux and Bourgeoisexample outlined earlier from the energy industries),customers,or both (as was found by Meeus et al. 2001 in their survey on innovation behaviour in a Dutch region). Thirdly, companies can develop collaborative relations with consulting companies.Finally, companiescan develop innovation networks with other organizations, someof which may evenbe competitors.For example,the restructuringof American and European military industries following the end of the Cold War involved mergers,acquisitions, as well as a signif,cant increasein the number of strategicalliancesdeveloped (Hislop 2000). Finally, collaboration amongst small firms within industrial districts representsanother type of intercompany collaborationinvolving competing companies (Antonelli 2000; Sternberg,1999; Tell 2000). Absorptive capacity: the ability to identifu and absorb erternal sources of knowledge Before organizations can utilize external sources of knowledge and develop network relationsthey needto be ablenot only to identify sourcesof relevantknowledge,but also have the ability to absorbit. An organization's ability to do this is deflned asits absorptive

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). The results of an empirical survey conducted by Tsai (2001) suggeststhat absorptive capacity is of fundamental importance to innovation processes/with organizational innovativenessbeing directly correlatedwith levels of absorptive capacity.

(integrate) thatlsimportantt0 (search) knowledge external andabsorb recognize Theabiliryto innovation orocesses.

Cohen and Levinthal identifled a number of factorsthat influenced an organization's absorptivecapacity.A key elementwas the possessionof prior knowledge.Thus a lack of prior knowledge will inhibit an organization's ability to identify and absorb external knowledge,although Meeuset al. (2001)suggestthat this relationshipworks only up to a point, and that an organization'sabsorptivecapacitycan be inhibited by the possession of too much prior knowledge, as well asby too little. An organization's absorptive capacity is also affected by the role of key people such as boundary spannels,who work at the boundary between an organization and its environment, and are thus well placed to identify externalsourcesof knowledge.Relatedlyan organization'sabsorptivecapacityis also shaped by the effectivenesswith which boundary spanners can interact with and communicate their knowledge to other organizational members. Finally, Leonard Barton (1995) produced a list of ways in which organizationscould enhance their absorptive capacity(seeTable11.3) 'lockout' (1990, 1'36-7) can cohen and Levinthal also suggestthat a problem called developwhen organizationshave weak absorptivecapacities.This is closelyrelatedto the concept of competency tlaps discussedin Chapter 10. Lockout happens when an organization's absorptive capacity is very low and it can become so unreceptive to (adapted f rom capacity absorptive organizational for enhancing Table11.3.Mechanisms Barton1995) Leonard 'l

as widelyas possibleto createan opennessto a broaddiversityof . Scanthe environment knowledgesources.

to as this allowsorganlzatlons ratherthanoccasionally continuously 2. Scanthe environment developments. effectivelykeepup to datewith contemporary gate-keepers as thesearethe peoplewho caneffectivelykeep 3. Nurtureand supporttechnological developments. technological latest wlth the to date up colleagues of theirrole.Supportmultiple, 4. Nurtureand supportboundaryspannersdue to the importance as havingonlyone boundaryspannercanbe risky(if they leave ratherthanone boundaryspanner, or if they are ineffective) and rewardingpeoplefor b. Fightagainsta cultureof NIH(notinventedhere)throughencouraging knowledge. utilizinqexternalsourcesof

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T externalenvironmental changesthat it finds it impossibleto implement innovations and change its products/servicesor working practices.Tsai (2001) also found that a lack of absorptive capacity can inhibit an organization's innovativeness, even if strategically placedat the centreof important networks. Social relations within innovation networks As outlined earlierin the chapterthe characteristicsof knowledgeaffect the characteristics and dynamicsof the socialrelationswithin innovation networks.Thus, the typically tacit and complex nature of much of the knowledge utilized in innovation processes meansthat effectivelysharingit requiresnot only that strong,trust-basedsocialrelations exist betweenindividuals, but that an extensiveamount of communication and interaction occurs.Hansen(2OO2)alsoreacheda similar conclusionwhen consideringhow the relatednessof knowledge affected knowledge-sharing during innovation processes involving collaboration between different organizationalbusinessunits. Hansen conwasaffectedby both the closeness cludedthat the quality of knowledge-sharingprocesses of the relationship between network partners and the relatednessof their knowledge. Thus effective knowledge-sharing was found to be most likely when therc was both a close relationship between collaboratorsctndwhen a signiflcant amount of common knowledgeexisted. However, the difficulty faced by collaborators in innovation networks is that appropriate trust-basedsocial relations may not exist, making the sharing of such knowledge extremely difficult. Thus in innovation networks involving diverse collaborators, whether from different parts of the same organization, or from completely different organizations,it is not uncommon that the collaboratorswill have only limited acquaintance with each other, may have only limited common knowledge, and may have divergent valuesand identities.Thus in this context, which, asdescribedin Chapter 6, is likely to be typical for most intercommunity knowledge processes,before innovation-specific knowledgecan be sharedit will be necessaryfor the collaboratorsto developtheir social relationship so that a certain level of trust exists,so that participants can develop some level of common knowledge, and which allows them to develop at least a basic understandingof the knowledgeand valuesof others.

Network-based innovation processesand contrasting work practices t e n s i o na n d a s s u r a n c ce o m p a n i e sI.n t h e l a t e1 9 9 0 s , D i a m o n dP e n s i o ni s o n e o f t h e U K ' sl a r g e s p for a varietyof strategicreasons,it decidedto changethe way that f ield salesstaff were managed salessupport and supported.The core of these changesinvolvedreplacinga manual,paper-based system with an automatedone. This would allow salesmanagementstaff to more effectivelyset targets for staff, monitor their progress towards achievingthem, and make comparing the performanceof staff substantially easier.However,the three-person team responsiblefor this project quicklyrealizedthat no existingsoftwaresystemswere totallysuitablefor their requirements.

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S However, oneveryseniorsalesmanager founda systemthathe liked,andwasextremely keento haveit customized for DiamondPension's purposes. After variousnegotiations involving the projectteamandthe systemsdesigners a collaborative development was undertaken. Diamond Pension agreedto givethe softwarecompanythe knowledge necessary to designthe system, whilethe softwarecompany wouldthenundertake the development work.Theyalsoagreedthat oncethis hadbeendonethe softwarecompanywouldbe ableto sellthisnew productto other pension companies, with Diamond Pension benefitingf inancially fromeveryadditional salemade. The systemmodification work requiredthe DiamondPensionprojectteamto communtcate a substantial amountof knowledgeregarding the company's workingpractices so that the new systemcouldbe designed to be compatible with it. Problemsemergedduringthis work largelydue to differences in the cultureand working practicesof the companies. DiamondPensionutilizedrelatively formalprojectmanagement methods,wheresubstantial amountsof documentation were required to keeptrackof allagreementsmade,progress on prolectdevelopment, andongoingchangesto the systemsspecification, etc. The softwarecompany,by contrast,which was relatively small,had a much more informal, ad hocculturewheredocumenting allworkwas deemednotveryimportant. Overtime,however,largely throughextensive communication betweenthe projectteamand the softwaredevelopers, whichoccurred throughbothface-to-face meetings, andmanylengthy telephone conversations, pension anagreedwayof workingwas negotiated. Ultimately Diamond gotthe producttheywanted,although it was delivered laterthantheyhadoriginally planned.

ls this situationlikelyto be typicalin most collaborations betweenlargeandsmallorganizations? Are largecompaniesalwayslikelyto havemoreformallzed roles,responsibilities, and procedures than smallcompanies? What,if anything,can largeorganizations do to minimizethe risksand problemsin suchcollaborations?

Orlikowski (2002), using an analysisembeddedin a practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge,suggeststhat a senseof common identity as well as appropriate social relations and amounts of common knowledge can be achievedthrough organizations utilizing particular 'repertoires'of organizationalpractices(seeTable 11.4).For orlikowski, knowing and practice are mutually constituted, as knowing is something that is created and sustained through ongoing practice, and vice versa. Orlikowski's analysis is basedon a detailed study of a software development company titled Kappa (a pseudonyn) that undertakes geographically dispersedsoftware development work. Kappais organized into fifteen separatedevelopment units, spreadacrossfour continents, each of which has design responsibilities on different projects. Design and product knowledge in Kappa is highly distributed, and Kappa deliberately splinters development responsibilitiesbetween sites,and createsproject teamsinvolving members from different development units. This is done with the objective of tapping into and Iinking together all their knowledge resources. Orlikowski suggeststhat the repertoire of practicesutilized by Kappa facilitate effective collaborativeproduct development activities, ascollectively they allow workers to span the

@

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T Table11.4. Orlikowski's boundary-span ningpractices Practice& knowledge objective achieved

Description

HowAchieved

Advantage

Disadvantage

Sharing identity: knowingthe organization

Developan understanding of 'kappa way of working'and developcommon voca0utary

Training and socialization programmes

Facilitates communication and co-ordination. Buildssenseof organizational loyalty

Development ol groupthink

lnteracting face-to-face: knowingthe players

Establishes social relationsbetween people

Extensiveuse of face-to-face meettngs

Buildsthe interpersonaltrust necessaryto facilitateproduct development work

Financian l d personalcost from extensive socral interactionburnout

Aligningeffort: knowinghow to co-ordinate acrosstime

Allowingstaff from different oeveiopment unttsto interact andcommunicate easrly

Useof standard project management methodsand standardmetrics for measuring time/efforton projects

Allowsco-ordinatton of largegroupsof geographically dispersed peopleworking on rnterrelated complexwork

Createsa set of normsand practrces which canbecome instilutiona lized anddifficultto challenge. C a nl n h i b i t rmprovtzation

Learningby dorng: knowinghow to continually oevetop capabilities

Encourage ongoingpersonal development

Rewarding and supportrng l e a r n i nagn d providing mentoring

Allowspeople to undertake oevetopment work which keeps t h e i rs k i l l sa n d knowledgeup date

KnowledgeIost throughstaff turnover.An investment whichis difficult to retain

Supporting participation: knowinghow to continually develop product innovations

Sustaining ability to continually Introduce product rnnovations

Involving people in decisions. Tolerating criticismand risk-taking and mistakes. Also throughfrequent rotationof staff

Sharingof ideasand insightsamong geographlcally dispersedpeople. Providesvoice to differentgroups

Canbe costly, canalso generateand exaggerate inter-unit conflict

diversity of boundaries which separateand divide them. within Kappa orlikowski identified sevenseparateboundarieswhich project teams had to work to overcome.Thesewere: (1) temporal boundaries(time zones); (2) geographicboundaries(differentlocations); (3) socialboundaries(with peoplebeing involved in a diversity of proiectssimultaneously);

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S (4) cultural (thirty different nationalities worked within Kappa); (5) historical (three different versions of the same product were being worked on simultaneously); (6) technical (different IT infrastructures were used in different locations) and (7) political (each development unit had its own responsibilities, targets,and interests).

Innovation processes:power, knowledge, and networks A general, though typicatly implicit assumptionr in the maiority of the innovation literature on knowledge and networks, is that the primary purpose for the development of organizational netlvorks, is to gain accessto the knowledge that such networks can provide. However, this is not necessarilythe only reason for the development of such networks. For example, the analysisundertaken by Hislop et al. (2000) showed that in the two casestudiesexamined, one of which is briefly touched on in Chapter 3, the development of networks served a political as well as a functional oblective. In the two cases examined in the study networks were developedand utilized by different staff for the dual purpose of giving accessto relevant knowledge, as well as attempting to resolve conflicts raisedby the innovation proiects in particular ways. As has been discussedextensively in Chaptets 4, 7, and 10, issuesof power and knowledge are inseparable.Therefore, when considering knowledge processes,issuesof power, politics, and conflict require to be accounted for. This is as true for knowledge utilized for innovation processesare for other organizational activities. While the literature on innovation networks has generally been weak at addressingsuch issues(fones and Beckinsale2001), there are exceptions,and a number of studies have discussedsuch issues.Thus, for example, Leonard and Sensiper(L998) discussthe conflicts of interest which innovation projectscan generate,while Ciborra and Patriotta (1998),as discussed in Chapter 4, showed how R&D staff were reluctant to voice certain opinions in electronic discussion forums for fear of the sanctions doing so might incur. Finally, in the case discussedearlier in the chapter,Jacquier-Rouxand Bourgeois(2002) outlined how significant power asymmetries existed in the interorganizational innovation networks they examined. These few casestherefore illustrate the importance of accounting for power and politics in innovation processes.

Conclusion Contemporary conceptualizations of innovation processestypically emphasize three interrelated characteristics(seeFigure LL.2). First, they are highly interactive, involving dynamic, intensive communication between the innovating organization and a potentially diverse range of people, groups, and organizations. Such interactions can occur 'stagemodel' logic that throughout the innovation processand bring into question the suggeststhat innovations are developed in separatestages,by distinctive and separate

@

@

I N N O V A T I OANN D K N O W L E D GMEA N A G E M E N T groupsof peoplewho have little interaction with eachother (Figure11.1).Secondly,the development and utilization of networks is also regarded as a fundamental aspect of contemporaryinnovation processes. The reasonsfor this, to someextent, arerelatedby a growing need for innovating organizationsto accessand utilize knowledgenot possessed internally. Such networks can be with organizations as diverse as customers, suppliers, competitors,researchorganizations,universities,and governmentbodies.Thus, innovating organizations typically find themselvesat the center of a complex web of diversenetwork relations. Thirdly, and finally, innovation processesare conceptualized as involving the complex interaction of a diversity of knowledge processes(not just knowledgecreationprocesses, but also searchand identiflcation, absorption,integration, etc.). The chapter also showed how the sharing and communication of knowledge relevant for innovations, much of which is highty tacit, requires extensive communication between people who have a significant degreeof common knowledge, and some shared senseof identity. However, the lack of one or all of these elements in many innovation networks makes the sharing of innovation-related knowledge, difficult, complex, and time-consuming.Thus, in this respect,the dynamicsof knowledgeprocesses within innovation networks has much in common with all intercommunity knowledge contexts examinedin Chapter 6, where the degreeof common knowledgeand/or extent of shared identity may be limited.

Rhetoric suggests processes thatinnovation areimportant for mostcompanies as tnetr e n v i r o n m e nat rseh i g h l yt u r b u l e nrte, q u i r i ncgo n s t a ncth a n g a e n da d a p t a t i olns.t h e r ea certainelementof hyperbole to suchclaims,or is constantchangeandinnovation a realityfor a largenumberof companiesT Whichsectorsarethe mostdynamicandwhyT Thestagemodeof innovation processes canbe criticized as beingtoo simplistic becauseit ignoresthe extentto whichstagesoverlap, etc.However, to whatextentdo the innovation processes undertaken by mostcompanies havesomeelementof a lineartrajectory between specificstages?

W. Orlikowski(2002).'Knowjngln Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organlzing',Organization Science,1313249-73. lllustrateshow organizationalpractices can be used to facilitateintra-organizational knowledge-sharrngin a dispersedsoftware company. M. Subramaniam (2001).'Determinants and N. Venkatraman of rransnational New product Development Capability: Testingthe lnfluenceof Transferring and Deploying TacitOverseas Knowledge',StrategicManagementJournal,22: 359-78. Examinesthe difficulties involved in, and the mechanisms used for sharing tacit knowrcoge needed in new product development work.

INNOVATION A N D K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E S 'Learning FromCollaboration: Knowledge and Networksin Biotechnology W. Powell(1998). Industries' and Pharmaceuticals , CaliforniaManagementReview,4013228-40. lllustrates the importanceand dynamics of interorganizationalnetwork relationsin the US. pharmaceuticaland biotechnologyindustries. 'Patterns Learningin a High-Tech andJ. Hage(2001). of lnteractive M. Meeus,L. Oerlemans, Region',OrganizationStudies, 2211: 145-l 2. lllustrates the interactivenessof contemporaryinnovationprocesses, focusingcentrallyon customerand suoplierrelations.

i.

'ir.-1ij

:

j'i ti.

: ,-:'-'

0rganizationaI contexts The three chaptersin this sectionexaminethe natureof knowledgeprocessesin three different, The primaryobjectiveof these chaptersis to examinethe charbut generictypes of organization. contexts acter and dynamicsof the knowledgeprocessesin a number of speclficorganizational Thus particular contexts. general 2 3 to organizational ideas in Parts and discussed and applythe the chaptersin this sectionhavea substantiallydifferentfocus from all previouschapters.While previouschapters have been thematicallyfocused on specific knowledge processes{such as R&D activitv),or particularfactors which influence knowledge processes (such as issues of power and conflict,organizational culture,or the use of lCTs),the chaptersin this section each contexts. examiningthe natureof knowledgeprocessesin particularorganizational O n e i n t e r e s t i n cgo n c l u s i o nw, h i c hw i l l e m e r g em o r ef u l l ya s t h e s ec h a p t e r sa r e r e a d ,i s t h a tt h e character of the knowledge processes in each organizationalcontext varies considerably (seeTable12). Eachchapterfocuseson examiningboth the natureof the knowledgeprocesses in each context,as well as the key factorswhich shapethese processes.This will involvesome overlapwith themes discussedin precedingchapters.Thusfor example,the chapteron NetworkVirtual organizationsreconnects with the theme of cross-boundaryknowledge processes organizationsrepresentone specificcontext where discussedin Chapter6, as Network-Virtual knowledgeprocessesare common.Equally,however,these chaptersintroduce boundary-spanning and examinethemes which have receivedlittleattentionthus far in the book, such as in Chapter systemsare sizeand nationalcultural/business 13 where the relationshipbetween organizational linkedto knowledgeprocesses. The finaltopic worth elaboratinghere is to explainthe rationalefor selectingthe three specific firms, types examined.The main reason for focusing on knowledge-intensive organizational globalmultinationals, organizationsis that they representthree of the most and Network-Virtual types in the contemporarybusinessworld. As touchedon importantand dominantorganizational i n C h a p t e ri , t h e l a s tq u a r t e ro f t h e t w e n t i e t hc e n t u r yw i t n e s s e da n e n o r m o u sa m o u n to f c h a n g e This period has seen the importanceof each of the in the structuringof businessorganizations. organforms examinedgrow significantly.Thus,Chapter12 shows how hierarchical organizational forms. Chapter 13 izationalstructureshave evolvedtowards network and virtualorganizational shows how the same period,due to a number of diverseinfluences,saw a growth in both the which exist, as well as a quantitativegrowth ln the number of large multinationalorganizations

O R G A NI Z A TO I NALCONTEXTS Table 12. The core knowledgeissuesrelatedto organizational types Organizational type

Knowledge issues

Network-VirtuaI O rganization

. Cross-boundary knowledgeprocesses(organization, function, b u s i n e s us n i t ) . r The difficulties of sharingcontextually embeddedknowledge. o ICT-mediated knowledgeprocesses.

G l o b aM l ultinational

o Cross-boundary knowledgeprocesses(national culture, businesssystem). o Organizational sizeand knowledgeprocesses. . Organizational structureand knowledgeprocesses.

Knowledge-intensive Firm

. How to makeknowledgeworkersloyalto company(retention). o Conflictin the employmentrelationship? r Who are knowledgeworkersand how canthey be motivatedto sharetheirknowledoe?

size(numberof employees) and degreeof internationalization Finally, of theseorganizations. Chapter14 showshow thistime periodalsowitnesseda significant growthin the numberand importance of knowledge-intensive f irms.

processes in Knowledge ftuaI organizations networldvi lntroduction Arguably, moves towards network and virtual organizational structures represent one of the most important aspectsin the contemporary restructuring of work. As has been outlined in Chapters6 and 11, collaborativemodes of working, which bring together diverse individuals and groups to collectively utilize their individual knowledge and expertise, have become increasingly popular. Further, as witnessed by the literature on multinationals, examined in Chapter 13, the network metaphor has also become a powerful analytical tool for understanding the nature and dynamics of contemporary modes of organizing(Fulk 2001). Defining and characterizingnetwork and virtual forms of organizatin will be done in the following section, but some examplescan illustrate the mode of organizing referred to. 3 rformerly Hutchison 3G),6a UK multimedia communications company that is developing a mobile telephone with video capabilities, can be characterized as being a network organization. Thus, the development of its current video-telephone has involved close collaboration with a number of organizations including Nokia and NEC, to provide an infrastructure, Motorola and NEC, to produce handsets, a variety of content providers including the FA PremierLeagueand nine game developers,and BBCTechnology,who are responsiblefor producing and editing audio-visualcontent. Another example of a network and/or virtual-based organization was the multinational examined by Nandhakumar 1999),which developedan IT-basedvirtual teamwork project which had the objective of fostering collaboration not only between the company'sbusinessunits, but alsowith external collaborating partners. However, as Castells (1998) makes clear, the existence of Japanesekeiretsu(vertical networks built around a large,specializedindustrial corporation), rs well as Koreanchaebol(hierarchically structured networks of companiesdominated by a singlelarge corporation), network forms of organizing areby no means totally new. However,what factors explain the massivecontemporary growth in the use of networkrased modes of organizing? Primarily, it is argued qb* ge -highly c9ryp9Jiliye a1d :.rrbulent nature of the market environment that most companies operate in, combined ',tttr tkrefast iiat. oi i6i6"ofogi.;t itri.rge, requires organizations to U" Uotn.ontinually Information on 3 was taken from their companywebsitewww.three.co.uk,on 11July 2003).

@

O R G A N I Z A T I O NCAOLN T E X T S innovative and highly adapta_b-.1e. As will be illustrated in the following section, network and virtual structures are argued to provide organizations with these capabilities (Black and Edwards2000;Jackson1999). The issuesdiscussedin this chapter link closely with topics considered in other chapters.The first section,which examinesthe characterof network and virtual forms of organization, links to Chapters 11 and 13. Secondly,the characterof cross-boundary knowledgeprocesses that were examined in Chapter 6 are returned to in the secondsection, which considershow the nature of knowledge affectsthe dynamics of knowledge processesin network modes of organizing.The third major section of the chapter then considersthe socioculturalfactors that affect people'swillingness to share knowledge in virtual and network-basedcontexts,which links to issuesof motivation discussedin Chapter 4, as well as the boundary-spanningorganizationalpracticesdiscussedin Chapter 11. Finally,the last major sectionin the chapteEwhich considersthe role of ICTs in facilitating and enabling network and virtual forms of work, connects closely with a number of themesdiscussedin Chaoter 8.

Definingand characterizingnetwork/virtualforms of organizing The focus of this chapter is on work that involves the spanning of traditional organizational boundaries (function, business unit, organization), is tlpically geographically dispersed,and where extensiveuseof ICTsis made to facilitateinteractions.However,an excessof different labelsis utilized to describesuchwork, including network-basedorganizing, virtual working, and dispersedworking. For example, Ahuja and Carley (1.999, 7 42) define a virtual organization as a, 'geographically distributed organization whose members are bound by a long-term common interest or goal, and who communicate and coordinate their work through information technology'. To distinguish between network and virtual organizations it could be argued that virtual organizations involve dispersed,ICT-mediated working, while network organizations involve cross-boundary collaboration (functional, organizational, etc). However, maintaining a clear distinction between them is difficult, as much virtual working involves cross-boundaryworking, and equally much cross-boundaryworking is done by geographicallydispersedteams.Thus Ahuja and Carley'sdefinition could equally be a deflnition of a network organization.In this chapter,no distinction is madebetweennetwork and virtual organizations.Instead,the all-encompassingbut shorthand term N-V will be usedto referto both simultaneouslv.

Bffi

Network-Virtual Workins

Thisisworkthatspans traditional boundaries, through either involving interorganizationalworking, collaboration thattranscends functional orbusiness unitboundaries. orbyintra-organizational Further, collaborators aretypically notco-located requiring theextensive useof ICT-mediated communication.

\,' K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E ISN O R G A N I Z A T I O N S structures Table 12.1. Characterand articulatedadvantagesof N-Vorganizational Characteristics

Advantages (compared to hierarchical structuresl

o Multidirectional knowledgesharingbetweenfunctions,organizations horizontally in and businessunitsas well as vertically hierarchy.

r More effectivefor horizontal, crossf unctional, knowledgesharing. inter-organizational

r Flexrble easyto andadaptable-structures modify.

o More innovative-through betterlinkingand dispersedorganizational integrating knowledge.

o Dispersed not wo'l'ing-work colleagues collocated.

. Betterknowledgesearching-through unctional f rom cross-f knowledgedeveloped and inter-businessinteractions.

e Dispersedknowledge-knowledge required to carryout work tasksgeographically dispersed.

r More flexibleandthus bettersuitedto dynamicsandcompetitive contemporary b u s i n e ses n v i r o n m e n t .

r Technology-mediated working-lCTsarean and importantmeansof communication coordination. o Flat'hierarchies-fewlayersof management. r Decentralized-'heterarchy', non-hierarchical. e Blurredboundaries-theboundaries between functions,businessunits,andorganizations rnvolvedin networksbecomeblurred.

The characteristicsof N-V forms of organizing, and their articulated advantages arecloselyinterrelated(seeTable 12.1).This is primarily becausethe advantagesof these forms of organization fundamentally lie in their structural characteristics,which are arguedto be well suitedto the highly turbulent and competitive characterof contemporary businessenvironments, ryhich require companiesto be highly innovative, flexible, adapting (Castells1998; Cravenset al. 1996.).FuItheI, N-V wolk stfuc_1ndc_9g!!4U4!y defined in opposition to hierarchicalforms of organization,which are usually tures are characterizedas being highly inflexible, and thus not suited to contemporary business environiii€rits.As well as being highly flexible, N-V organizationsare also arguedto be morir eii&tivi: than hierarchically based organizations at sealching for, sharing, and creating knowledge, becausethey facilitate communication and interaction between businessunifs and functions more effectively.Figures 13.1 and 13.2 illustrate these differencesdiagrammaticallyin relation to multinational corporations. As Table 12.1 makesclear,one characteristicof N-V forms of organizing is that tradi:ional boundaries,such asthosebetweenfunctions, businessunits, and/or organizations oecomeblurred. Thus, appropriately,researchon this topic includes work which examrnesboth intraorganizationalnetworks (such as Ardichvili et al. 2003), and interorgan'.zationalnetworks(suchasDyer and Nobeoka2000).For the purposesof this chapterN-V lorms of organizing are defined broadly to include both intraorganizationalas well as .nterorganizationalcontexts.

@

I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S ORGAN An enormousnumber of writers and analystsarguethat N-V modesof organizingareso important that they have become the new orthodoxy in the structuring of organizations. Fenton and Pettigrew(2OO0a)report the resultsof a large-scalesurvey of companiesin Western Europe that substantiatessuch claims. Their results showed that during the courseof the early 1990s,of the companies that participated in the survey: a

30oloreduced the number of layers in their hierarchy

a

500/o usedproject-basedworking practicesmore

a

74o/orcpofied an increasein horizontal interaction

a

82oloincreasedinvestment in IT

a

650loreported using outsourcing more

a

reportedusing strategicalliancesmore 650/o

Beforeconcluding this sectionrit is, however,worth making a couple of important observations. First, while it is possible at an abstract level to talk in general terms about N-V forms of organizing, this disguisesthe enormous diversity of specific N-V organizational forms that exist. Thus, just as Chapter 11 showed that there is enormous variability in the types of innovation networks that firms undertake (seeTable 11.2),there is equally asmuch diversity in the types of N-V structures.Cravenset al. (1996) developeda tlpology with four genericcategoriesof N-V governancestructure (seeFigure 12.1),with the character of such structuresvarying dependent upon both the nature of the network relationship developed,aswell as the level of environmental volatility. Thus they use the term'hollow network' to describecollaborative networks in volatile environments that are characterized by relatively transactional relations, such asexist in the network that Nike, the sportsshoe 'flexible netdesigner,developswith shoe manufacturers.Alternatively, they use the term work' to describethe tlpe of networks developedby the pharmaceuticaland biotechnology firms examined by Powell et al. (1996, 1998), where the environment is equally volatile, but where network relations are more collaborative and long term in nature. Another important observation to make regarding to the literature on N-V structuresis that while many organizations have moved towards this type of organizational structure, there arefew'pure'N-V organizations(StanworthL997).Thus while many organizations

networkrelationships callaborative

towenvironmental volatility

I

I value-added | | It t v network | |

r;;-l I

hishenvironmental volatility

network I

ional tranSacl of networkforms of organizing(fromCravenset al. 1996) Fig.12.1.Classification

K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N SO R G A N I Z A T I O N S have restructured to produce flatter structures, and introduce cross-functional teamworking, there are still elements of continuity with more traditional, hierarchical structures(Ahuja and Carley 1999;Goodall and Roberts2003; Hales2002).

N-V organizationsand the'problem' of dispersedknowledge The focus of this section is on how the characteristicsof knowledge affect the d;mamics of knowledge processesin N-V forms of organizing. Most work in this area utilizes a practice-basedperspective on knowledge, including the two papers examined here, by Cramton (2001)and Soleand Edmondson (2002).Thereforethis sectionlinks closelyto Chapter3. As was discussedin that Chapter,and illustratedin Tables3.1 and 3.3 the practice-based perspective on knowledge characterizes knowledge as being highly tacit, embedded in the work activities that people undertake, and context-specific. Thesecharacteristicshave quite profound implications for work in N-V organizations, becauseif knowledge is largely context-specific, the fact that people in N-V organizations are dispersed and work in different physical contexts means that the knowledge they possessis likely to be quite specific and specialized.Therefore, the knowledge dynamics in N-V organizations are equivalent to the type of cross-boundary knowledge processes examined in Chapter 6, where collaborating workers have limited common knowledge, a rveak senseof shared identity, and possibly divergent values. However, the sociocultural issuesof identity and valuesare consideredin the following section. Both the papers examined here, while focusing on slightly different themes, deal with the fundamental issue in N-V work contexts of how people who possessspecialized knowledge, and have little common knowledge, effectively collaborate together and collectively utilize their knowledge. As suggestedin Chapter 6 (seeTable 6.3), not only do 'sticky' such workers have limited common knowledge, but this knowledge is likely to be and difficult to transfer, and epistemic differencesmay also exist in the assumptions -rnderpinning their knowledge. Cramton (2001) examines the difficulties involved in developing and sustaining nutual knowledge' (another term for common or shared knowledge-knowledge pos.essedby all those collaborating) in dispersedforms of collaboration. The specif,ccontext ::udied by Cramton was international.lydispersedstudentproject groups (eachof which :ad 6 members) that communicated exclusively via ICTs.Cramton found that significant :rlticulties existed in both developing and sustaining 'mutual knowledge', with this :
@

O R G A N I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S 'mutual knowledge'in ICT-mediated fable 12.2. Factorsinhibitingthe developmentof dispersedwork contexts(adaptedf rom Cramton2001) Factor

Character

Problem

C o m m u n i c a t i na gn d nding Understa Knowledge Contextual

Projectteam membersfound it difficultto communicate what was pertinent,contextual knowledgeto others.

Teammemberscouldfind it difficult and the behaviour to understand attitudesof others.

or knowledge o Limitedthe abilityof team Not all information UnevenlyDistributed full membersnot recelving to allteam Information/Knowledge was communicated in grouP knowledgeto participate members(oftenaccidentally). activities. . Createdconflictandantagonism regarding relatedto interpretations reasonsfor people'sexclusion. DivergentInterpretations When largemessageswith on of Information/ rnformation/knowledge of Saliency multipletopicswere sent, Knowledge peoplefoundit difficultto or interpretwhat communicate was most salrent.

for conflict,as dlvergent Potential on saliencyaffected interpretations how peoplebehavedand expected othersto behave.

DifferentCommunication Teammembershaddifferential accessto e-mail,whichaffected Speeds the speedof theirresponses.

for conflict,as the Potential slownessof peopleto respond couldbe attributedto laziness ratherthantechnicalproblems factors. or structural

DivergentInterpretation of Silence

The diversityof reasonsfor,and of, a lackof interpretations responseto queries(silence as agreement,silenceas busy, silencedue to technical problems).

for conflictif therewere Potential the regarding misunderstandings reasonsfor a groupmember's sllence.

Symon (2000) suggeststhis is the casefor much of the researchon ICT-basedcommunication in N-V organizations.For example, the study by Jarvenpaaand Leidner (1999) discussedin Chapter 8 was also on student-basedvirtual project teams.

studiesto the contextof work arethe findingsof student-based How relevantandtransferable contextslimitthe Doesthe lackof an employmentcontractin student-based organizations? of suchstudies? oeneralizibilitv

in analysingthe resultsof somelongitudinal casestudies Soleand Edmondson(ZQOZ), into the knowledgedynamics within geographically dispersed product development

K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N SO R G A N I Z A T I O N S teams/ focus on the same key issue as Cramton: the difficulty of sharing knowledge between contexts. However, while Cramton examined the difficulties of developing 'mutual knowledge', Sole and Edmondson considerthe difficulties involved in sharing what they refer to as 'situatedknowledge'betweenthe different locationsthat members of the product teamswork at. Situatedknowledgeis a specifictype of contextuallyembedded knowledge, being knowledge of the context itself, such as knowledge of the physical characteristicsof the site, the peoplewho work at it, and the capabilitiesof the facilities at the site. Drawing on the practice-basedperspective on knowledge, Sole and Edmondson make clear that situated knowledge is highly context-specific,being acquired by people over time-through working at a particular site and formally and informally communicating with others who also work there. They conclude that sharing such knowledgeacrosssitesis likely to be a complex and time-consumingprocess,due largely to the lack of common situated knowledge that will typically exist in dispersedteams.

Sofe and Edmondson ,20021: transferring situated knowledge between contexts ln one of the projectsexaminedby Soleand Edmondson, difficulties were encountered when production of a new chemicalrequired to be extendedfrom pilotto production scaletrials.The i n i t i apl i l o t r i a l sh a db e e nd o n ea t o n es i t e ,w h e r et h e e x p e r i m e n tsacli e n t i sr te s p o n s i bgl ea i n e d a lot of knowledge and understanding of the production process.However,due to equipment constraints, the production scaletrialshadto be conducted at a sitedifferentto wherethe pilot trialshadbeendone.Thiscreateda problembecause staffat the new,production scaletrialsite didn'thavethe detailedknowledge of the pilottrialprocess. Thisknowledge was situated, and largelytacit,beingpossessed by scientistsresponsible for the pilottrial.The sharingof this knowledge betweensiteswas nota quickor simpleprocess, andwas doneby transferring the scientists responsible for the pilotto the new largertrialsite.Therethe scientists were ableto sharetheirknowledge with localsiteengineers, who hada detailed understanding of the capabili t i e so f t h e e q u i p m e natn df a c i l i t i eosn t h e i rs i t e .W h i l et h i si n t r o d u c eadd e l a yt o t h e p r o d u c t process,this was foundto be the onlywav that relevantstaff couldsharetheir development context-dependent, andlargelytacit,situatedknowledge.

ls situatedknowledge alwaysIikelyto be difficultto shareandcommunicateT Aretherework contextswhereitstransferral maybe straightforward, suchas in hotel,restaurant, supermarket, andshopchains, whereworkcontextsaredesigned to be generic?

I

I

overall therefore, a number of writers, drawing on a practice-basedperspective on knowledge, suggestthat the context specificity of the knowledge possessedby workers in N-V work contexts makes sharing knowledge and collaborative working in such contexts difficult.

@

O R G A N I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S

The socialdynamicsof cross-boundaryknowledge processes in N-V organizations This section focuseson socioculturalissuesthat affect people'swillingness to shareand collectively utilize their knowledge within N-V organizations.As was made clear in Chapter 4, due to both the potential tensions that exist, becauseof the nature of the employment relationship between worker and employer over how a worker's knowledge is used,as well as the potential for interpersonaland intergroup conflict which existsin all organizations,people cannot be assumedto be willing to sharetheir knowledgewith others. Further, symon (2000),in a review of the literature on the role of ICTs in N-V organizationsconcludesthat people'swillingness to use such ICTs should also not be taken for granted. Thus, the effectivenessof knowledge processesis fundamentally dependentupon peoplebeing willing to shareand usetheir knowledgewith others. The dilemma of knowledge-sharing/hoarding one way of characterizingthe processby which people decide whether and how to participatein knowledge-relatedactivitiesis to considerthem associaldilemmas(Cabrera and cabrera 2oo2; Dyer and Nobeoka zoo0; Hollingshead et ar. 2ooz). cabrera and Cabreraarguethat the dilemma people faceover whether to shareor hoard their knowledgeis equivalentto the classicalpublic-gooddilemma. A public good is a sharedresource which members of a community or network can benefit from, regardlessof whether they contributed to it or not, and whose value doesnot diminish through such usage.A public park is an example of a public good. Knowledge can be considereda public good becausepeople can benefit from using the knowledgeof otherswithout the value of the knowledge being reduced (Hollingsheadet al. zoo2).The choice for people in such a situation is thus to 'free ride'by using the knowledgeavailablein a network without contributing to it, or to contribute knowledge to the network, and thus make it available to others.The dilemma in this situation for peopleis that while free-ridingoffersthe greatest level of individual utility, if everyone acted as a free-rideqthe value of the shared resourcewould diminish.

lf a publicgoodis a sharedresourcewhosevaluedoesnot diminishthroughuse,to what extentcan knowledgebe considered a publicgood?Doesthe useof sharedknowledgediminishor affectits value?ls therea riskthat sharingit with largenumbersof peoplemay reduceits value?

Understandingthe share/hoardknowledgedecisionindividuals evaluateas a dilemma usefully emphasizesthe complexity of this process,and also helps to explain why different people can make different decisionsin quite similar circumstances.The rest of this section examines the range of factors that typically influence people's decisions on whether to sharetheir knowledgeor not, and what organizationscan attempt to do to createa willingnessamong workersto shareand usetheir knowledge.

I NSO R G A N I Z A T I O N S K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E Factorsshaping attitudes to knowledge-sharing in N-V work contexts Researchshows that a wide range of different factors affect the willingness of workers to actively participate in the type of ICT-mediated knowledge processesthat are tlpical in N-V modes of organizing.Thus, as discussedin Chapters4 and 8, Hayesand Walsham (2000), utilizing a Foucauldian-basedanalysis suggestthat the potential for surveillance in lCT-mediated knowledge processeswill affect, and may inhibit, the participation of workers.Jarvenpaaand Staples(2000) conclude that factors such an individual's personal propensity to shareknowledge aswell astheir perception of the quality of the knowledge in lCT-mediated media will affect participation levels. McClure Wasko and Farai (2000) also found that people actively contributed to ICTto show a commitment to and promote communities that mediatedknowledgeprocesses they felt a part of. Finally, Ardichvili et al. (2003), based on a study of ICT-mediated knowledge-sharing in an N-V context in Caterpillar, a US-basedmultinational which designs and manufactures heary constluction and mining equipment, found a wide range of factors which affectedthe willingness of workers to both sharetheir own knowledgeand searchfor the knowledgeof others (seeTable12'3) These studies therefore show how the willingness of workers to actively participate in knowledge plocesses in N-V contexts is shaped by a complex range of factors. Conceptualizing knowledge use in N-V contexts as a dilemma involving workers conducting a risk/reward calculation, suggeststhat organizations can affect such attitudes

attitudesin virtualworkgroups affectingknowledge-sharing/searching Table12.3.Factors et al.2003) :daptedfromArdichvili

::ltors creatinga willingness - r oarticipate in knowledge --]CESSCS.

: =-::rs inhibiting PeoPle's in : , ationto participate '- ,',edgeprocesses.

Knowledge-sharing

Knowledge-searching

r knowledgeregardedas a 'publicgood'belonging to network,not individual. o commitmentto organization and/ornetwork. e personalbenefitsin termsof status/rewar0.

o helpsintegratepeopleIntoa new organazatton. o providesa mediumthrough whichpeoplecan Interact with otherswho it would otherwisebe difficultto with. communicate r havereceivedusefuladvtce from specificindividuals prevlously. o networkregardedas useful to date'. forkeeping'up

. fearthat contribution may be wrong. o feelingamongstnewerstaff of not havingadequate to be ableto experience contnbute. . contributing is a time process. consumrng

o peoplewith established acecommunlties face-to-f may preferto usethem ratherthanvirtualnetworks. o questionsfelt to require specificknowledge,and not relevantbeyond narrowconlexr.

@

@

O FG A NI Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S through reducing the risks/costsand/or increasethe rewardsto workers for their knowledge-relatedbehaviours (Cabreraand Cabrera2002;Hollingshead et aL.2002).For example, reducing the costs/riskscould involve minimizing the complexity and time involved in knowledge-sharing,or rewarding people (financially or otherwise) for appropriate behaviours.

Apartf rom providing f inancial rewards,and makingthe processsimple,what elsecan be doneby organizations workersto sharetheirknowledgewith othersin N-Vwork contexts? to encourage

The following two subsectionsexamine in detail two important factors that can have a particularly significant influence on the socialdynamics of knowledgeprocesses: firstly, the nature of the N-V collaborationbeing undertakenand secondly,the extent to which people identify with and trust others in such contexts,and who regardtheir knowledge as belonging to the network as a whole, has been found to be key to knowledge-sharing attitudesby a rangeof studies. The nature of collaborative relations and knowledge dynamics As discussedearlier,and illustrated in Figure 12.1, there is an enormous diversity in the type of collaborativenetworksthat exist.One of the dimensionsutilized by Cravenset al. (1996) in their taxonomy of network types was the nature of the relationship between network partners. In the Craven'staxonomy, netr,vorkrelations were characterizedas existing on a spectrumbetweentransactional-based relations,to more long-term, deeply involved, collaborativerelations.Hardy et al. (2003)build from such insights and examine an important, but relatively neglected topic: how the nature of the collaborative relationshipwithin a network affectsthe knowledgeprocesses that occurwithin suchnetworks. Further,Hardy et al. specificallyfocus on processes of knowledgecreation. Hardy et al. (2003)developan analysisbasedon a detailedlongitudinal casestudy of a rangeof collaborativerelations developedby a singlevoluntary organization (seeexample immediately below). Thus while they develop an interesting analysis,the generalizibility of their conclusions have yet to be tested. They found the ability to oeate knowledge within collaborative networks was related to the level and character of the involvement between network partners,with involvement being measuredin terms of three dimensions (seeTable 12.4).The type of involvement that was most favourableto the creationof knowledgewas collaborationsthat: (1) had a deeplevel of interaction, (2) were characterizedby partnershipbased,rather than a transactionaltype of network structures.and. (3) where knowledgeflows were two-directional rather than unidirectional. perspectiveon knowledge,suggestthat Hardy et al. (2003),drawing on a practice-based reason for was the this becauseknowledgeis highly tacit and contextually embedded,the

SO R G A N I Z A T I O N S K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N interactionsnecessalybetweenpeople to cleatenew knowledgerequire to be extensive' Thus, high involvement relations are most likely to foster the type of interaction necessary for the creation of knowledge in network organizations.

Network Relationsand Knowledge Creation networksdevelqualitativestudy of a rangeof collaborative Hardyet al. conducteda longitudinal, was conwhich et Enfant, Mere organization, oped by a single Palestiniannon-governmental and Gaza Bank West of the cernedwith improvingchild nutritionwithin the occupiedterritories Strip.Mere et Enfanthad about sixty f ull-timestaff, and developedan explicitstrategyof utilizing networks to improve lts effectiveness.Over the period studied (1994-7\, inter-organizational Mere et Enfant developedeight separatecollaborativenetworks with a range of organizations l f N u t r i t i o nP, e a c eo n E a r t h( aJ a p a n e s ec h a r , e O s l oS c h o o o i n c l u d i n gM e d i c i n sS a n sF r o n t i e r st h ity),the World Food Program,and Oxfam. However,not only did the purposeof each collaborative network vary,the natureof the collaborativerelationshipdevelopedalso variedsignificantly. Basedon the analyticalf rameworkthey developed,the type of relationsthat existedwithin each as havingvariablelevelsof involvement(seeTable12.4).For examnetwork were characterized ple, the relationshipdevelopedwith Peaceon Earthhad a high levelof lnvolvement,as the depth of interactionbetween staff was high, a partnershipstructurewas developed,and information flows were both bidirectionaland multidirectional.In contrast,the relationshipdevelopedwith Oxfam hada low levelof involvement.This was becausethere was a shallowdepth of interaction between staff, a transactionalstructure was utilized,and informationflowed unidirectionally (from Mere et Enfant to Oxfam). Hardy et al. found the type of high-involvementrelationship developedwith Peace on Earth was more conduciveto the creationof knowledge than that developedwith Oxfam. fable l2.L Factorsaffectingthe characterof involvementbetween partnersin a collaborative network (adaptedfrom Hardyet al. 2003) Interactions among network partners

Type of collaborative structure

Directionof knowledge flows

Measuredin termsof dePth that staffare withinhierarchy directlyinvolvedin networking activities.

no new 1. transactton: structurecreated.Resource simplypooledor exchanged

from one 1. Unidirectional: partnerto anotneronly.

ShaIIow inleractionas those whichonlyinvolvesenior management.

2. partnership:a specific structurecreatedwithin whichcollaborating partnerswork.

arethose Deeplnteractions which involvestafffrom a numberof layersin the hierarchY. organizational

where 3. representation: partnersrna collaboration representeachotherto thirdpartres. external,

significant 2. Bidirectional: amountsof knowledge flow bothfrom andto networkPartners. 3. m ultidirectional:knowledge flows not onlybetween but to networkPartners, thirdpartiesoutsidethe network.

@

ORGAN I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S Trust, identity, shared values, and knowledge as a network good In understanding what affects workers' motivation to share their knowledge with their co-wotkers,the concept of trust is of fundamental importance.As discussedin Chapters 3 and 4, if workers do not have a high level of trust in their co-workers,managersorr more abstractly, their organization, they are much less likely to willingly utilize their knowledgethan if they had a high level of trust in thesepeople,groups,and/or institutions. For example,Cascio(1999) and Mirchandani (1999) highlight the importance of a trusting relationship existing between N-V workers and their managers.Ardichvili et al. (2003) discussthe importance of the extent to which workers trust their employer in general. Finally, trust between co-workers is also vitally important (Ardichvili et al. 2003; Darthe and Snyder2001; Nandhakumar 1999). The importance of trust between co-workers is reinforced by the fact that N-V work contexts are equivalent to the sort of intercommunity, boundary-spanning,knowledge processesexamined in Chapter 6, where workers who collaborate tlpically have a weak senseof common identity, limited sharedof common knowledge,and possiblydivergent values.In such contexts,the issueof trust is particularly signiflcant,as the development of somelevel of trust is a likely to be necessaryto createa willingnessamong workersto sharetheir knowledgewith others. As illustratedin Chapter6, trust is a complex concept,largelybecause it hasbeen shown to be multidimensional. Thus, there aredistinctive types of trust, which produce and affect social relations differently, and which are developedin dissimilar ways (seeTable 6.4). In general,a willingness to shareknowledge is most likely when the strongestforms of trust exist (Zucker'sprocess-based and Newell & Swan'scompanion-basedtrust), and leastlikely when only weak forms of trust exist (institutional-or commitment- basedtrust). What is indisputableis that when somelevel of sharedknowledge,values,and identity exists in N-V work contexts, positive benefits flow, in terms of work attitudes and behaviours in general and more specificallyin terms of people'swillingness to collectively utilize their knowledge (Dyer and Nobeoka 2000;Jarvenpaaand Ives 1994; Orlikowsiki 20O2).Fot example,Ahuja and Carley (1999) describea successfulvirtual researchnetwork in which a strong senseof common interestand trust existedbetweenparticipants. Furtheq Moon and Sproul (2002) arguethat the successfuldevelopmentof Linux, open sourcesoftware,which was developedby a self-organizing,voluntary group with a strong leader,wasbasedon the senseof common identity and sharedvaluesthat existedand was sustainedby the project'scollaborators. A variety of methods can be utilized by organizations to create such conditions and attitudes.Two specificways of doing this include facilitating and encouragecommunication between co-workers (such as through the creation of a diverse range of communication channels, or enhancing the richness of communication media) and through publicizing information about workers' knowledge-sharingcontributions (Cabreraand Cabrera2OO2).Frcm a practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge, the most effective way to develop trust, sharedvalues, and common knowledge is through utilizing tasksthat bring workers together. For example, in Kappa, the geographically dispersedsoftware development company examined by orlikowski (2002) that was discussedin chapter 11 (seeTable 11.4), it was a range of work practiceswhich was fundamental in creating a senseof collective organizational identity. The example presentedbelow of Toyota's

SO R G A N I Z A T I O N S K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N supply chain network shows how such a senseof shared identity and common purpose can also be developed within interorganizational networks.

Toyota: knowledge-sharingin a supply chain network in creatinga supplychain Dyerand Nobeoka(2000)suggestthat Toyotahas beensuccessful knowledge-sharing interorganizational whereextensive, suppliers, amongtrscomponent networK in component pattern fundamental is a knowledge-sharing this that conclude they occurs.Further, typwhich factors the with through dealing lt doesthis innovative. abilityto be sustainably Toyota's andconcerns problem, narrowself-interest, suchasthef ree-rider icallyinhibitknowledge-sharing, flowingfrom knowledge-sharing. possibility consequences of negative thatthereis a significant of allowthedevelopment practices that simultaneously working a numberof Toyotautilizes Firstly, and the creation includes This of knowledge. thesharing andfacilitate a senseof networkidentity, training formalconferences, thatorganizes association supplier of a Toyotaspecific management of idena sense creating both provides of a usefulway This association events. social and courses, conToyota internal an is also There knowledge. explicit of relatively the sharing tityandallowing specific to address supportto suppliers andextensive bothintensive sultingteamthat provides through isfacilitated betweensuppliers of knowledge thesharing problems theymayhave.Finally, 'voluntary' groups, and thetop(Totoya these for creating groups is responsible learning the useof the practices facilitate all These collective transfers. icstheyfocuson),and interfirmpersonnel activities andiointproblem-solving interactions, throughface-to-face sharingof tacitknowledge knowledge-sharing appropriate underpin to further Secondly, together. relevant staff that bring rule is thatfree+iding first The of rules. number a Toyotahascreated amongsuppliers, behaviours agreeto share if they are onlyallowedto becomeToyotasuppliers is banned,andcompantes therearealsoinformalrulesregarding Secondly, with Toyotaandits othersuppliers. knowledge theyacquirewithinthe netknowledge from derive companies that benefits of the distribution will be passedto the restof benefits that,in the longterm,economic work.whereit is expected Throughthesevariousmechanlsms, passedon to Toyota. the networkthroughcost reductions anda sharedsenseof identityamongstlts Toyotais ableto createa commonsenseof purpose, regard of this,staffin theseorganizations a consequence as to someexrenr Further, suppliers. Toyota in the all of benefit for the as beinga publicgoodwhichshouldbe used theirknowledge or protectit for the narrow to hoardtheirknowledge, network.Thuspeoplearelessconcerned it with othersinToyota's share willing to are and organization, own or their cenefitsof themselves in the network all provide for benefits it should supplvchainnetwork,in the knowledge

)yer and Nobeokatake littleaccountof issuessuch as power and conflict.However,Toyotais much .1orepowerful thanthe suppliersit developsrelations with. To what extentis the supplychain ^etwork that Dyer and Nobeokadescribethe resultof Toyotamakinguse of its power to createthe :ypeof supplychainnetworkthat rt wants?What scopearethe supplierslikelyto haveto negotiate with Toyotaand its othersuppliers? of theirworkingrelationship :1e conditions

@

@

OR G A N I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S In conclusion, to understand what makes people willing to share and utilize their knowledge in N-V work contexts,it is necessaryto understand the socioculturalfactors that are so important in shaping such attitudes and behaviours.While this section has shown that it is possiblefor organizationalmanagementto use a range of interventions to create the senseof network-based identity and the type of trust which is typically necessaryfor peopleto be willing to sharetheir knowledgewith others,the difficulties of doing so should not be underestimated.

ICT-mediatedknowledge processesin N-Vforms of organizing This sectionconsidersthe relationshipbetweenICTsand N-V forms of organizing,aswell as the social dynamics of ICT-mediatedknowledge processesin such work contexts, which involves returning to issuesdiscussedin Chapter 8. The relationshipbetweenICTs and N-V forms of working is of suchfundamental importancethat it is impossibleto fully understand the character of, or catalysts underpinning N-V forms of working without accountingfor the role of ICTs.The rapid pacein the evolution of ICTsrepresentsone of the catalyststo the emergenceof N-V form of organizing, as the contemporary functionality of ICTs representone of the enabling factors that make such forms of organizing possible.Thus it is almost impossibleto find an analysisof N-V forms of organizingwhich don't make referenceto the enabling role of ICTs (see,for example,cravens et al. 1996; Jarvenpaaand Ives 1994;Stapleset aI.1.999;Jackson1999).

Shell: A web-based global knowledge management system Carrington(2002) describes a web-based knowledge management system utilized by Shell I n t e r n a t i o n aElx p l o r a t i oann d P r o d u c t i o n( S I E P )S. I E Pi s a w o r l d w i d eo p e r a t i o nw , i t h s t a f fb e i n g globallydispersed.A knowledgemanagementsystem was implementedwith the objectiveof helpingpeopleto shareknowledgeacrosssites. In all,eleven knowledgecommunrrreswere set u p , w i t h t h r e ef o c u s e do n s p e c i f i cb u s i n e s sf u n c t i o n sa, n d e i g h tf o r s u p p o r tf u n c t i o n ss u c ha s l T and H R, with the sizeof the communitiesvaryingf rom 700 to 4000.Thereare two aspectsto the system. Firstly,peoplecan ask for responsesto specificquestions,placedon a globallyaccessib l e f o r u m . S e c o n d ,t h e r e i s a n i n d e x e d s, e a r c h a b l a e r c h i v eo f p r e v i o u sq u e s t i o n sa n d a n s w e r s that peoplecan use.The type of knowledgesharedis typically'hardfactualstuff' (32),knowledge that is relativelyobjectiveand highlycodified.For example,a Brazilianteam had problemsrecoveringa brokentool f rom a boreholeand so decidedto ask for answerson the forum,Within twentyfour hoursthey had receiveda varietyof responses,and on the basisof them were able to solve . e o p l ew e r e i n i t i a l l rye l u c t a ntto u s et h e s y s t e m ,d u e t o c o n c e r n sa b o u th o w m u c h t h e i rp r o b l e m P time would be involved,and whether they were 'givingaway' preciousknowledge.Knowledges h a r i n gw a s a l s oi n h i b i t e db y a s y s t e mo f d i v i s i o n abl e n c h m a r k i nw g h i c h r a n k e dd i v i s i o n a s gainst

K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E ISN O R G A N I Z A T I O N S each other. However, once these concerns were dealt with Shell believed the system had become successful,and estimatethat it has helpedthem save over f 100m.

Oneof the initialproblemsinhibiting knowledge-sharing on the globalKM systemwas thatwhile were benchmarked divisions againsteachother,the systeminvolvedsharingknowledgebetween To what extentis this issuelikelyto be typicalin networkformsof organizing? Further, divisions. does movingtowardsnetwork-based this meanthat organizations structuresneedto re-evaluate the way the performance of businessunitsandfunctionsis monitoredand rewarded?

The problem with too much of this rhetoric, however, is that in its optimism it is somewhat blind to the limitations that persist, even now, in the information-processing and communication capabilities of ICTs,which inhibit N-V forms of organizing. The debates in the literature on the role of ICTs in N-V forms of organizing mirror the debatesin the generallCT-basedknowledgemanagementliteraturedescribedin Chapter 8. For example, it is apparent that in the literature on the role of ICTs in N-V forms of working, both objectivist and practice-basedperspectiveson knowledge are utilized. Thosewriting from an objectivist perspectiveassumethat knowledge can be codifi.edand made explicit, and thus managed/shareddirectly via ICTs(seeShell example).Suchwriting emphasizeshow databases, searchablearchives,and structureddiscussionboardscan be usedto communicate and shareknowledgewithin dispersednetworks. Others utilize perspective,where it is assumedthat ICTscan play a more indirect role in a practice-based facilitating the maintenance and development of the type of social relations which For example,Ardichvili et a1.(2003) arguethat ICTscan underpin knowledgeprocesses. of communication and interaction amongst pre-existing support and enhanceprocesses communities of practice. Two issuesrelatedto lCT-mediatedknowledgeprocesses that are relevantto N-V forms of organizing are: o While ICT- mediated communication may be able to help sustain social relations between people who alreadyknow each other, this form of communication is more problematic for the development of social relations between people with little knowledgeof eachother (Mcloughlin andJackson1999). r Social relations are unlikely to be strong if mediated purely by ICTs, and the development of a strong social relationship typically requires an element of face-to-face interaction. The literature on knowledge processesin N-V organizations is typically sensitive to theseissuesand generallyconcludesthat to develop and sustainthe t)?e of social relations conducive to effective knowledge-sharing requires a certain level of face-to-face interaction betweenworkers.Thus, one of the most significant managerialimplications flowing from this is that in organizations moving towards N-V structures it is important to ensure that there are adequate opportunities for workers to be able to interact and communicateface-to-face.

@

O R G A NI Z A T I O N A LC O N T E X T S

Conclusion Evidence suggeststhat one of the main aspectsin the contemporary restructuring of organizational forms has been to move away from hierarchical-basedstructures towards virtual- and network-basedstructures.The rationale underpinning this transition is that N-V forms of organizing, due to the way they transcend traditional organizational boundaries,and support horizontal aswell asvertical communication in organizations,are more effective for sharing and integrating knowledge than hierarchical structures.The importanceof such processesis in turn related to the dynamic characterof contemporary business environments, which require organizationsto be flexible and continuously adaptable. ICTs and N-V forms of organizing were also shown to have a complex, symbiotic relationship,with the processingpowel, and paceof changeof ICTsrepresentingboth a catalystto and enabler of N-V forms of organizing. Howevet, despitethe (often blind) optimism regarding the ability of ICTs to facilitate N-V forms of organizing, the difficulties of managing and sustainingknowledge processesin an ICT-mediatedcontext that were discussedin Chapter 8 were acknowledged.Thus, even with the powerful capabilities of contemporary ICTs, ICT-mediatedcommunication still constrains the type of social interactions that can be undertaken, and affects the extent to which highly tacit knowledge can be effectively shared. As N-V forms of organizingtypically bridge and transcendtraditional intra- and interorganizational boundaries, through requiring the collaboration of people from different functions, businessunits, and/or organizations,knowledge processesin such contexts representa specificexample of the cross-boundaryknowledge processesexamined in Chapter 6. Thus the people collaborating in N-V forms of organizing will typically possess specific and specializedknowledge, and collectively may have a limited amount of common/shared/mutual knowledge, and possibly only have a weak senseof shared identity. In N-V work contexts,creating a willingness among people to sharetheir knowledge, was found to be predicatedon the and participatein collaborativeknowledgeprocesses of identity. When suchtrust exists sense shared and a of trust existenceand development good than an individual pospublic peoplearelikely to regardtheir knowledgemore as a sessionand are thus more likely to make it available to the network of collaborators, rather than to hoard it or and use it in a narroq self-interestedway.

r:'....'ii,:.ii.iii# r

'free-rider' Basedon Vourown experiencesof, and knowledgeof work, how common is the 'free+ide' on life?Furthel what affectswhether peopleare likelyto problemin organizational a to commltment with and identity of ls sense collectivegoods/knowledge? a community/networktypicallyenoughto make free-ridingunlikely?

How differentwill be the 2 Network forms or organizlngcan be intra-or inter-organizational. processof developingof a common/sharedsense of identityin these two types of networks?What factorswill affect the dynamicsof such processes?

K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S Et N SO R G A N T Z A T T O N S structures,stark contrasts 3 ln analysesof the advantagesof network and virtualorganizational are usuallymade with hierarchical structures,which implicitlyassumesthey are oppositional in nature.However,to what extent is this a false dichotomy?How compatibleare principleswith N-Vstructures? hierarchical

: o J. Dyer,and K. Nobeoka(2000).'Creatingand Managinga High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network:The ToyotaCase'. StrategicManagementJournal,2l:345-61. A detailed case study of how knowledge-sharingis encouragedand facilitatedwithin Toyota's supply chain network. o D. Sole,andA. Edmondson (2002).'SituatedKnowledgeand Learningin Dispersed Teams',Brifish Journalof Management,13: S17-34. A theoreticaland empiricalexaminationof the problems of sharingcontext-specificknowledge in dispersed work environments. 'Motivation o A. Ardichvili, in Virtual V Page,andT.Wentling(2003). and Barriersto Participation Knowledge-Sharing Communitiesof Practice', Journalof KnowledgeManagement,Tll:64-77 . in communities of Examinesthe socioculturalfactors related to knowledge-sharing/searching practice where interactionis largelymediated by lCTs. r

'Resources, The andT. Lawrence(2003). Knowledge and Influence: C. Hardy,N. Phillips, Effectson Interorganizational Organizational collaboration', Journalof ManagementStudies,40l2'. 32147. Examineshow the nature of collaborativerelationsaffects knowledge creationprocesses.

EE

Wffi'ffi processes in Knowledge global multinationals lntroduction This chapter examines the dynamics of knowledge processeswithin large, global multinational corporations.The focus here is not on how companiesgrow to become global, but on the knowledge dynamics within already large, internationalized otganizations. This representsan interestingand important context for the examination of such issuesfor a number of reasons. Firstly, the economic importance of such organizations grew signiflcantly in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Driven by a combination of interrelated processessuch as market deregulation,rapid advancesin information and communication technologies,and growth through meIgeIS and acquisitions, not only has there been a process of globalization, whereby more and more companiesare becoming globally active, but there has alsobeen a growth in the number of large organizations,and in the sizeof alreadylarge organizations(Carchedi1991,ch. 7; Korten 1995;WIR 1999).Von Krogh et al. (1996)characterize this trajectory as involving a two-stage evolution from international to multinational flrms, and from multinational firms into global firms. Korten (1995,I21), using an element of hyperbole, suggeststhat this changehas been so signiflcant that it represented, ,the most rapid and sweepinginstitutional transformation in human history'. Exemplars of the type of company considered here include: Ernst & Young, the professionalservicecompany which employs over 105,000people,who work from over 670 locations in over 130 countries; Boeing the aerospacecorporation which employs over 160,000workersin thirty-eight statesof the USAaswell a seventycountriesglobally; and IBM the computer company which employs over 300,000 staff in more than I 00 differentcountriesglobally.T

is global worldandwhosebusiness whichhassitesthroughoutthe organization A largemultidivisional in character.

7 This information was taken from the following websites on 16 June 2003 (rvwr,v.EY.com, wn'wBoeing.com,rvwwlBM.com).

I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S ORGAN Secondly,global companies have typically been in the vanguard of attempts to develop knowledge management solutions/systems, have been some of the most enthusiastic advocatesof the benefitsof knowledgemanagement,and have generallybeen the earliest at realizing the potential of knowledge management (KPMG 2000; McAdam and Reid 2001). Thus, for example on Boeing'scorporatewebsite (r,l'vl'w.Boeing.com)8 the third of its three corporate objectivesis to, 'sharebest practice and technology acrossbusinesses'. Further, as illustrated by the example considered in Chapter 12, Shell International Exploration and Production (SIEP)have also become aware of the benefits of internal knowledge-sharing. Finally, as will be become apparent as the chapter progresses,becauseglobal multinational organizationshave highly dispersedand fragmentedknowledgebases,employ large numbers of employees,and involve the communication and interaction of people with diverse sociocultural beliefs, the dynamics of knowledge processesin such organizations are quite particular. In examining knowledge processesin this context the chapter links together issues already examined, with some new themes. Specifically,issuesreturned to include the distributed nature of organizational knowledge, the d;mamics of knowledge-sharing acrossboundaries,and how social factors affect knowledge processes. Thesetopics are then linked with two themes not examined thus far organizational size and crosscultural knowledgeprocesses. The chapter is structuredinto three sections,with the issuesexamined in eachbeing illustrated and supported by different examples.The first section examines the relationship between the structuring of multinational corporations and the knowledge dynamics within them. Following this, the secondsectionconsidershow organizationalsizeaffects the dynamics of organizationalknowledge processes,and generallyconcludesthat the greaterthe sizeof the organizations,the more complicatedits knowledgedynamics are Iikely to be. The third section then concludesthe chapter by examining cross-cultural knowledge processes,and considershow the socioculturalvalues that people possess affectorganizationalknowledgeprocesses.

The structuring of multinationalsand knowledge processes As outlined in Chapter 3, the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge assumesthat becausethe knowledge people possessis closely linked to the physical and cognitive activities they undertake, and is embedded in the social context in which such activity occurs, the knowledge base of all organizations will be fragmented into specialist subcommunities. From this perspectives,one of the key and most difficult tasksof management is to link together and coordinate the organizational knowledge base (Brown and Duguid 1998; Grant 1996; Kogut and Zander 1992;Tsoukas1996).While the objectivist perspectivehas a different conceptualization of knowledge, and typically assumesthat it can be more easily codified, those analysesof knowledge utilizing such a perspective 8 Siteaccessed 16June2003.

SI V U L T I N A T I O N A L S K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N also acknowledge the complexities of sharing and integrating knowledge within multinational corporations (Gupta and Govindanjan200l'; Szulanski 1996;Tsai2O01). In global multinational corporations such as those outlined in the introduction to this chapter, which may employ tens of thousands of workers, operating from possibly hundreds of different sites,dispersedacrossthe globe, the task of coordinating and integrating organizational knowledge is non-trivial. However, the flip-side of having such a diversified knowledge base is that it createsenormous potential for qmergy to be developed through intra-organizational learning and interaction (Macharzina et al. 2OO1; Morosini 1998; Soderberg and Holden 20O1.;Yan Maanen and Laurent L993). Thus possessinga large, fragmented knowledge basehas both potential benefits and problems. One way of supporting and facilitating intra-organizational knowledge processesis through the structuring of organizations. However, the diversity of ways in which MNCs are structured in practice suggeststhat there is no consensuson the best way to facilitate intra-organizational knowledge-sharing.The rest of this section considersthe knowledgesharing implications of utilizing two particular structural forms: a centralized,hierarchicalbasedstructure and a decentralizednetwork structure.

The centralized hierarchicalstructure This means of structuring a multinational corporation assumesthat the home baseof the corporation, the country out of which a multinational originates,provides a platform and a foundation from which global advantagecan be achieved (Macharzina et al' 2001').In such organizations global expansion occurslargely through taking advantageof the home bases,capabilities,which are developedfrom, basedin, and exploit national and regional systemsof innovation. Porter (1990), for example, suggeststhat such a logic is highly prevalent. Laurent (1983, 1986) also supports such a perspective,and arguesthat all multinationals to some extent bear the stamp of the country from which they originate. Basedon this model the corporate centre, which will be basedin the home country is typically largeand where not only the vast majority of strategicdecisionsaremade,but where researchand developmenttype knowledge-creatingactivitiesarealsolocated(seeFigure13.1). Within such organizations knowledge flows unidirectionally, ftom the corporate centre out to the organizations businessunits, which arelargely responsiblefor applying this knowledge to their local market context. Finally, another characteristic of this model is that there are few independent interconnections between different businessunits. The importance of such a structural logic is also reinforced by those wdters who suggestthat the extent to which multinationals aretruly intemational hasbeen exaggerated,and that the majority of multinationals are still home or region centred(Hirst and Thompson 1999;Rugman2000).

of the countriesin which independent corporations multinational To what extentarecontemporary in the USA,UK,France, originated that corporations you multinational lf compare they originated? in the way they operatethat are Germany,Russia,China,Japan,etc, canyou discerndifferences relatedto theircountrYof origin?

@

O R G A N I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S

CORPORAT CE E N T RIEN ' H O M E 'C O U N T R Y Responsibilities: o strategicdecision-making, . knowledgecreation

knowledge f lows: Unidirectional Centre>> Periphery

A U T O N O M OB UU SS I N E S S . Knowledge application

A U T O N O M OB UU SS I N E S S . Knowledge application NOinter-unit knowledge-sharing

A U T O N O M OB UU SS I N E S S . Knowledge application F i g . 1 3 . 1 . A c e n t r a l i z e dh, i e r a r c h i c asl t r u c t u r ef o r m u l t i n a t i o n a l s

Dell: codification strategy and centralizedstructure Hansen et al. (1999),as discussedin Chapter9, suggestedthere were two broad knowledge strategy. managementstrategiesthat companiescould pursue:a codificationor a personalization Dell,the computermanufacturingand retailingcompany,was one companythey describedwhich followed a codification-based strategy.Such a strategyis lT-based,and involvesthe codification of knowledgeinto searchablerepositories(seeTable9.1).With such an approach,the knowledge in the repositorycan easilybe reusedby anyone.Dell combinesthis type of knowledgemanagement strategy,with a centralized,hierarchicalstructure.Dell utilizesa knowledgerepositoryto sell computersdirect to their customers,who define the specificationof their machines(either on the web or via a telephonecall with a customer sales assistant)through selectingcomponents from the knowledge repository.Dell, which has over 34,000 employees worldwide, spread across thirtv four different countries, utilizes a centralizedcorporate structure.Thus national/regional offices,whose main responsibilities are for sellingcomputers,or providingaftersalessupportand servicingto customers,do not havemuch of a role in strategicdecision-making, and are more concernedwith administrationand knowledge applicationthan with knowledge creation(suchas designingor managingthe lT-basedknowledgerepository).

demandsof local ls therea riskwith sucha strategythat Dellwill be lesssensitiveto the particular marketsthan if it useda moredecentralized strateov?

K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E I NSM U L T I N A T I O N A L S

The decentralizednetwork structure As Chapter 12 shows,the network logic for the structuringof multinationals is currently extremely influential, with the path-breaking work of Ghoshal and Bartlett doing much to initiate this way of conceptualizingthe internal structureof multinationals (Ghoshal and Bartlett 1990;Bartlett and Ghoshal 1993). With a network-based structure, in contrast to centralized hierarchical structures, knowledgecreationis not the soleresponsibilityof the corporatecentre,with there being multiple centres of knowledge creation (seeFigure 13.2). Secondly,knowledge can flow equally in both directionsbetweenthe corporatecentreand businessunits. Thirdly, there are many interconnectionsbetween interdependentbusinessunits, with a diversity of mechanismsbeing used (such as staff transferralsbetweenunits, matrix structures,etc.) to facilitate such interactions.Finally, these are typically complex organizationalstructures that don't have a clearhierarchy.Hedlund (1986,1994)usedthe term'heterarchy' to describethis structuralform. Primarily,within a network structure/businessunits are not controlled in a top-down way by the corporatecentre. This structuralform, asillustratedin Chapter 12,has a number of advantagesover hierarchical structuresin terms of knowledge processes.Primarily, the network structure more effectively facilitates the sharing of knowledge between businessunits (Tregaskis2003; van Wijk and van den Bosch 2000). Grant (1996), in his development of the knowledgebasedtheory of the firm, also suggeststhat hierarchicalcoordination is bad for sharing

BUSINESS . Knowledge creation . Knowledge-sharing

BUSINESS o Knowledqe creation . Knowledde-sharing

CORPORATE CENTRE Responsibilities: o Facilitate knowledgesharing . Someknowledge lnterbusiness interaction and knowledge-sharing

Interbusiness interaction and knowledge-sharing

BUSINESS . Knowledge creation r Knowledge-sharing

Fig.13.2.A networkstructurefor multinationals

O R G A N I Z A T I O NCAOLN T E X T S and integrating knowledge.Grant, in what amounts to a knowledge-basedjustification for organizational delayering argues that the disadvantage of hierarchical structures is that they are ineffective at sharing tacit knowledge, as they primarily utilize systemsof ruies and regulations to coordinate activity and integrate knowledge, which are poor for sharing tacit knowledge. The most effective means of sharing such knowledge is through processesof direct interaction between people, where there are minimal levels of hierarchy, such as in the network form.

N. V. Philips:the network structuring of a multinational G h o s h aaln dB a r t e t t( 1 9 9 0u) s et h e D u t c he l e c t r l c a g lo o d sc o m p a n ay s a n e x e m p l aorf h o w a multinational canbe conceptualized as a network.Philips canbe considered to be a multinational company as it hasoperating unitsin oversixtycountries worldwide. Whilethe company's corpor a t eb a s ei n H o l l a nids u n d o u b t e dtlhye s i n g l em o s ti m p o r t a nhtu bi n t h eo r g a n i z a t i o n ea tl w o r k , Philips's structureis closerto a networkthana hierarchy. Thus,manyof its businessunitsare extremely large,constituting someof the largestorganizations inthe counties theyarelocatedin. Therearealsodifferentcentresfor research anddevelopment. Thus,manyof Philips's business unitsarenotsimplyresponsible for the application of knowledge createdat thecorporate centre, but haveknowledge creationresponsibilities as well.Finally, thereis alsoa diversity of interconnectionsbetweenbusiness units,facilitating the sharingof knowledge betweenthem.Thusfor examplethe business unitsin regionssuchasAfrica,Europe, theAmericas, andAsia-Australasia arelinkedtogetherin regional networks.

A contingencyperspectiveon structure Birkinshawet al. (2OO2), in an interestingarticle that deservesto be widely read,provide an analysisthat challengesthe logic that network forms of organization representthe most effective way of organizing multinational companies in everysituation. Overall their analysistakesa contingency-basedperspectiveto organizationaldesign,and concludes that the design of an organization'sstructure should account for the characterof its knowledgebase.Their analysisconsideredhow the level of observabilityand the degree of system embeddednessof an organization'sknowledge were linked to the degreeof autonomy and integration betweenbusinessunits. Observabilityrefersto the easewith which an activity can be understood by simply looking at an organizational process,or its products, whereassystem embeddednessrefersto the extent to which knowledge is a function of the systemor context in which it is developedand used. While their analysiswas based on researchinto the R&D activities in a handful of Swedish multinationals, making it difficult to generalize widely, they found a strong relationship to exist between organizationalstructureand the degreeof systemembeddednessof organizationalknowledge.Specif,callythey found that the degreeof system embeddednessof organizationalknowledge was inversely proportional to the level of

K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E ISN M U L T I N A T I O N A L S

High TRANSPARENT ISOLATED

Knowledge observability INTEGRATED OPAQUE Low

Low

High System-embeddedness of knowledge

Fig.13.3.A typologyof organizational knowledgebases(from Birkinshawet al.20021

inter-unit integration. Therefore, when the knowledge in an organization is highly system embedded, the level of inter-unit integration is likely to be low, due to the difficulties and problems involved in sharing such knowledge. Basedon the two dimensionsof knowledgethey utilized they developeda typology, characterizingthe knowledgein R&D units into four generictypes (seeFigure 13.3).Birkinshaw et al. (2OOZ) suggestthat different structuresarethus likely to be appropriatefor eachtlpe of knowledge base. Extrapolating from this framework it could be argued that hierarchical structuresaremost appropriatewhen organizationalknowledgeis'transparent' (i.e.when it has a high-level observability and a low level of embeddedness)as in such circumstances knowledge can be relatively easilycodifled and shared.Further,network forms of organization may be most appropriate when organizational knowledge is 'integrated' (i.e. when knowledgehas a low ievel of observability,and a low level of embeddedness), asthe effective sharing of such knowledgerequiresextensiveand direct socialinteraction between people. Overall therefore this section has outlined two different ways in which multinational companiescan be structured, and shown how the knowledge dlmamics within them vary substantially.In general,network structuresaremore conducive to processesof knowledgesharing/searching than hierarchical structures. Further, drawing on Birkinshaw et al.'s (2OOZ)analysisit was concluded that the most appropriate structure for a multinational corporation to adopt may depend on the dominant characteristicsof their knowledgebase. This analysis has significant managerial implications, as it suggeststhat in the development of businessand knowledge strategies,as well as the design of organizational structures, attention requiresto be paid to the characterof the organizational knowledge base.

Organizationalsize and knowledge processes As far back as L987, Whitley suggestedthat organizational sizerequired to be taken more seriously as a variable of analysis in the study of organizational behaviour. However, in general terms, his call has gone unheeded. The literature on knowledge management is

@

I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S ORGAN no exception in this respect,as the relationship between organizational size and the dyramics of knowledge processeshas in general terms been neglected (exceptions van Wijk and van den Bosch2000; Becker2OOl;and include Fenton and Pettigrew2OOOb; Forsgren1997). As has been discussedextensively elsewherein the book, the typically fragmented, specialized,and dispersednature of the knowledgebasein most organizationsmeansthat one of the key tasksfor management is to coordinate and integrate organizational knowledge. In general,as organizational size increases,the more complicated the processof knowledge coordination becomes,as the organizationalknowledgebasebecomesmore and more fragmentedand dispersed.Drawing on Brown and Duguid's (1991) metaphor 'community of communities', the more organizational (sub) of an organization as a communities that exist, the more likely it is that processof coordinating and facilitating their interactions will increasein complexity.

Rabobank:the knowledge dynamics in an expanding network the of Rabobank, VanWilk and van den Bosch(2000)studiedthe evolutionin the structuring . y t h e l a t e1 9 9 0 s c o m p a nby e t w e e n1 9 B Ba n d1 9 9 7 B Dutch-base bd a n k i nagn df i n a n c i as le r v i c e Duringthe time studied,due in over100countries. 44,000workerswith operations it employed structureaway to a varietyof externaland internaldrivers,it evolvedits internalorganizational this structure.Partof the catalystunderlying from a hierarchical one towardsa network-based increased the sizeof by Rabobank undertaken was thatthe mergersandacquisitions evolution at arm'slengthfrom the corporate suchthat businessunitswere increasingly the organization was located. knowledge didn'tknowwhererelevant centre,andalsoincreasingly However, theseproblems. it wasfelt,wouldhelpaddress of a networkstructure, Theutilization organof a single development make difficult the was found to of the organization the largesize of sizeandthedynamics knowbetweenorganization/network network.Therelationship izational Mh, i c hh a d e n a s m a l l esrc a l ei,no n eb u s i n e susn i tS P E C T R U w l e d g ep r o c e s s ewsa sa l s ov i s i b l o Duringthe structure. the network-based andimplementing of developing beenin the vanguard six years),it grew from havingonly thirty time that this divisionwas studied(approximately affected divisionsignificantly sizeof the SPECTRUM to having350.The expanding employees patterns betweenstaffworkingin its differentproductareas,which of horizontal communication sizeof the the increasing In general, elementsof a networkstructure. is oneof the characteristic relatively had been division Thus,when the communlcation. inhibitedhorizontal organization but as the divisiongrew it becameincreasingly was widespread, small,suchcommunication moreandmorecompartmentalized. with eachproductgroupbecoming uncommon,

of networkstructuresto large What implications do theseflndingshavefor the relevance structures benefitsof usingnetwork-based Do they meanthat the knowledge+elated organizations? size? organizational diminishwith increasing

INMULTINATIONALS K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S E S

posHowevet,incleasingolganizationalsizedoesnotsimplymaketheprocessofcoordination of interactionsthat are alter the type and character funiamentally of can it character more complex, 3-6, the tacit and context-dependent chapten dir.";;;;" sible. As has been knowledgerequiresextensive -.un, ,t at effectivelysharing most organizationatt<now*teig" peopleto be willing to enough trust existsfor where context in1 particularly socialinteractions to occur in chapter 6' this is As was extensivelydisLssed . such in nr"."rr. participate thecasewhenknowledgehastobesharedbetweenpeoplewhoarenotmembersoftheSame community,astheymayhavedifferentvaluesystemsandlimitedcommonknowledge. necessaryfor such knowledge the type or 'otiui u"o "rutions Developing well as Gargiulo and """u"tlg Thus Hansen(Iggg), as effectFJrriiir"-.""*ming. be to processes Benassi(2000),alguethatsustainingstlongsocialrelationships'requirescontinuous pelson can interactionsbetweenpeopleandasustainedrec-ipro.ut.^.t'uns;.ottlowledgeandinforrelationships that any a limit to the numb", oi,,,.h is by there Thus researched mation. company in Kappa' the global R&D example' For tlme' one effective any sustain at done by staff to sustain ttl' 'n" ulnot"" or iJ*lliig organizational size orlikowski f'"" ct'upit' of burn-out' Thus as problem tt to social relations cont;t"J " incleases,sodoesthepotentialproblemsanddifficultiesofsustainingrelationshipswith allthepeoplewhomayhaverelevanttnowreogeandexperience(seeFigurel3.4fora of this process)' graphical representation network 5mall,cohesive

(a) Strongtie Weaktie O

Person

(b)

holes Largenetworkwith structural

'o

Fig. 13.4. Typical social

of different size relations within networks

@

O R G A N I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S Table 13.1. Knowledge-related benefitsand dlsadvantages of cohesivenetworksand networkswith structuralholes

Cohesivenetworks

Network with structuralholes

Characteristics Tghtlyknit networks,where longestablished socialrelations exist,strong normshavedeveloped, and highlevels of interpersonal trustexist

Networkswhere interpersonal connections are loose,limited normsexist,and interpersonal trust is limited

Advantages

Providespeoplewith accessto a wide rangeof knowledgeand information whichmakespeople opento changeanda diversityoI vrewpoints

Createsan environment conducive to knowledgesharingand cooperation within tne network

Disadvantages Createsa potentlalrigidity,due to the effortrequiredto sustainnetwork(sustain norms,reciprocate whereexpected), which may hinderpeople'sabilityto adaptthrough limitingthe rangeof knowledgeand information they utilize

Knowledge-sharing and social interaction inhibitedand slowed down by a lackof cohesiveness andestablished socialnorms

Becker(2001)referredto this as the problem of 'largenumbers'. Beckerarguesthat the typically dispersedcharacterof an organization'sknowledge base createsthree fundamental problems/issues for organizationalmanagement,one of which is the problem of largenumbers.This problem stemsto two factors.Firstly,there is the issueof opaqueness, or intransparency,which refersto the difficulties of developing an overview when knowledgeis fragmentedand dispersed,which is a problem that increasesasthe level of dispersal or number of fragments increases.Secondly,is the issue of resourcerequirements involved in bringing together the fragmentsof a dispersedknowledge base,which is a problem that again increasesproportionally with organizational size.Thus, for Becker, there is a direct relationship between organizational size and the difficulty of managing and integrating an organization's knowledge base.

Dueto the amountof work involvedin sustaining them, is therea limitto the numberof strongties that peoplecan have?lf so, what is the approximate sizeof this limit-5 , 10,20,50,more?

Connecting theseinsights to the work of Gargiulo and Benassi(2000)it can be argued that the type of network relations that people can have will vary with organizational size. Gargiulo and Benassicontrast the advantagesand disadvantagesin terms of knowledge searching and acquisition of cohesive networks compared to networks with structural holes (seeTable 13.1). In Gargiulo and Benassi'sanalysisthe type of network that any individual possesses is determinedby personalchoice. However,the difficulties outlined aboveof trying to support a largenumber of strong,closesocialrelationshipsmeansthat the larger an organization becomes,the more difficult it will be for people to sustain

K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E ISN M U L T I N A T I O N A L S

cohesive networks with all relevant people, and the more people's social networks will becomefilled with structuralholes (seeFigure13.4). Thus the larger an organization, the more people's social networks will have structural holes, and the smaller an organization, the more easyit will be for people to develop, posand sustain cohesivenetworks. As a consequence,the knowledge dynamics within SeSs, large and small companies are likely to be quite different. As suggestedby Table 13.1 and Figure 13.4, this does not mean that large multinationals are less effective at sharing, searching for, or integrating knowledge than in small companies, simply that their knowledge dynamics will be different.

Pharma-co:organizationalsize and cohesivenetworks phar3 and8 is a UK-based in previousexamplesin Chapters as alreadydiscussed Pharma-co, which in the late 1990sbeganattemptingto implementan information maceutical company, and cooperation. communication systemthat wouldimproveintra-organizational management anddouits turnover, mergers which trebled involved in two at the sametime,it was However, (employing 10,000staffworldwideby the end of approximately bledits numberof employees andknowledgebeenlittlecommunication therehadtraditionally WithinPharma-co the 1990s). unitshadrelatively business staffin eachof Pharma-co's units.Instead, sharingacrossbusiness theirown prodnetworks,andeachunitwas narrowlyfocusedon producing cohesivelocalized wassummedup by one andinteraction Thislackof communication uctsfor theirown customers. 'the of the European to haveimpededintegration thingthat is perceived manageras follows: groups. . . . Thereis no the manufacturing between is an absenceof anyconnectivity operation or inforof anyexperience betweenthemat anylevelin Europe. . . thereis no exchange dialogue at all.' mationor knowledge Whilethemergerssigcontinued. unitautonomy thispatternof business Following themerger, potential benefitsf rominterincreased the theyalso increased the sizeof the company, nificantly overlapbetweenthe differentbusinessunits.But, the due to the increased unit interaction, netof localandcohesive thecreation whichfacilitated andisolation cultureof compartmentalism due to mergers following the prior intensified mergers, became to the had existed worksthat parjob Thus, prevent occurring, suchinteractions and losses,andactedto fearsof rationalization the increased while mergersimprovedthe potentialbenefitsof knowledge-sharing, adoxically, andmistrust andclimateof anxiety withthecultureof autonomy combined sizeof theorganization, possibility collaboration of such to make the which emergedfollowingthe merger,combined withintheir peopleevenf urtherthanhadbeentraditional throughentrenching occurring unlikely, localnetworks.

situationof fearand mistrustthat occurredin PharmaWiderevrdencesuggeststhat the post-merger to developtrust, do in suchsituations co is not untypical(seeEmpson2001)-What can management processes? knowledge-sharing reducef ears,andfacilitate

O R G A N I Z A T I O NCAOLN T E X T S In conclusion, this section has shown how organizational/network size can significantly affect the dynamics of knowledge processes.In general, as organizational size increases,not only doesthe complexity of managing knowledgeprocesses increase,but the characterof the network of socialrelationsbetweenpeople,which crucially underpin knowledgeprocesses, will also change.

Knowledgesharing acrosssocioculturalboundaries and businesssystems Chapter6 examinedin detail the dynamicsand complexitiesof knowledgeprocesses that involve interactions betlveen people from different communities. The speciflc focus here is on the dynamics of knowledge processesthat involve the spanning of sociocultural boundariesaswell asdistinctive and quite different businesssystems.As has been shown alreadyin this chapter,one characteristicof multinational corporationsis the need for workers from different countries to cooperate.Thus the dlmamics of such interactions are an important aspectof knowledge processeswithin multinationals. What are not examined here are the methods by which such boundaries can be surmounted to make processes of knowledgeprocesses more effective.Suchissuesare dealt with in Chapter 6. The focus here is on what impact sociocultural and institutional systems have on processes of knowledge-sharing,integration, and knowledgeproduction. The socioculturalvaluesthat peoplepossess, and the characterof the businesssystems that exist, are closely interrelated, as business systems are created and reproduced by people in possessionof particular socioculturalvalues,while simultaneouslythe sociocultural valuespeoplehave are shapedby the characterof the businesssystemsthey work in. For analytical clarity, however, these topics are examined separatelyhere. In general, aswith the issuesof organizationalsize,neither topic has receivedmuch attention in the knowledgemanagementliterature.Thus, the illustrative examplesutilized are not taken from the knowledgemanagementliterature.Nevertheless,both examplespresentedusefully illustrate the relationshipbetweensocioculturalvaluesand businesssystems,to the dynamicsof knowledgeprocesses.

Organizational knowledge processesand bridging sociocultural differences Sociocultural values and beliefs refer to the systemsof values,knowledge, and beliefs that individual people possess.Such values are shapedby an enormous diversity of social and cultural factors including social class,the countries in which people are born and live, educational expedence, family and parental influences, religion, experiencesof work, professionalcodes of behaviour and ethics, etc. Some, most notably Hofstede (1980, 2001), arguethat distinctively national cultural characteristicscan be identified in different countries. But, while this perspectivehas been highly influential, it has simultaneously been subjectto significantcriticism (McSweeney2002; Soderbergand Holden 2002). Having said that, numerous examples can be given of differencesin sociocultural values that exist, and their impact on organizational processes.In the knowledge

SN / U L T I N A T I O N A L S K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N management literature the greatest,if not sole focus, is on differencesbetween Japan and Europe and the USA.Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) suggestthat there are quite distinctive differencesbetween Japan and the Western world (Europeand the Americas)with regard to the way knowledge is conceptualized and used in organizations. While this could be criticized as crude cultural stereotyping, there is some evidence that there are distinctive differencesbetween Asian and European values and attitudes. For example, Pauleen and Yoong (2001) found there to be a greater degree of respect for authority and a higher degree of formality in businessrelations in Japaneseand Chinese cultures than in European and Australian cultures. Such differences were also shown to make misinterpretation and distortion possiblein communication processes. One explanation for the existenceof the differencesin sociocultural values that people across the globe possessis that they are shaped by the system of cultural values that people areborn, educated,socialized,and work within. The most well-known advocateof such a perspectiveis Hofstede,whose influence is visible in the work of some of those who write about multinational companies, thus, Machalzina et al. (2001) talk about how knowledgeis deeply culturally bound, while Van Maanen and Laurent (1993, 275) talk about how values and behaviour are shapedby'underlying codesof meaning'. Such differences have been shown to have a profound influence on knowledge Firstly,such differences,as was discussedin Chapter 6, make the sharing and processes. integration of knowledge between people with different systemsof sociocultural values extremely complex and difficult. The lack of common knowledge, shared system of values, or overlapping senseof identity that can exist in such situations is the primary explanations for these difficulties. Secondly,the sociocultural values that people possess importantly shapethe way knowledge is produced, meaning is made, and, using the language of the practice-basedperspectiveon knowledge, how processesof perspective making and taking occur. Thus people actively use their sociocultural values to produce meaning and create knowledge, and two people may construct quite different meanings from the sameevents,basedon their different value systems' The example immediately below provides an illustration of such a process.Further, an acknowledgement of the role played by sociocultural values in shaping the way people createmeaning and produce knowledge challengesthe idea embeddedin the transmitterreceivermodel of knowledge-sharingutilized by the objectivist perspectiveon knowledge (seeChapter 2). Thus, knowledge cannot simply be diffused and transferred, unaltered, between people with different cultural values.

Disneylandin Japan and the USA: sociocultural influenceson processes of perspectivemaking valuesaffectthe way of how sociocultural VanMaanenand Laurent(1993)providean analysis USA.At first glance, the Adventureparksin Tokyoand visitorsmakesenseof the Disneyland themeparks.Thusit appears American of Disney's Tokyolooksto be a perfectreplica Disneyland in a similar andreceived interpreted are which messages, and codes cultural to containthe same

@

OR G A N I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S way by equallyenthusiastic Japaneseand Americanvisitors.Thus,since Disnevland Tokvo openedit provedto be justas,if not moresuccessful parks, thanthe AmericanDisneyland and hasbeenvisitedby enormousnumbers.However,in subtleways Disneyland Tokyohasbeen modifiedto accountfor differentsociocultural values.ThusDisneyland Tokyohasfeweroutdoor foodretailers andhasmoresit-downrestaurants parks.Therearesomenew, thanthe American specificridesthatdescribe anddefendJapanese waysof life.lt haspicnicareascloseto the park that go againstDisney'svaluesof not allowingfood to be broughtto its parks.Finally,in Disneyland Tokyo,but notin the American parks,whiteglovesarewornby vehicledrivers, while secondnamesratherthanfirstnamesareusedon worker'snamebadges. V a nM a a n e na n d L a u r e nat l s oa r g u et h a tw h i l et h e s a m ev a l u e se x i s ti n t h e J a p a n e saen d Americanparks,the way theyareinterpreted, andmadesenseof by theirdifferentaudiences is f u n d a m e n t adl liyf f e r e nTt .h ed o m i n a nvta l u e si n D i s n e y t' sh e m ep a r k si n b o t ht h eU S Aa n dJ a p a n are of order,safety,and cleanliness. However, whilethis is arguedto appealto the American visitorsfor the contrastandescapeit provldes to theirtypicallifeexperiences, the samevalues appealto itsJapanese visitorsbecause theyreinforce andreflect,ratherthancontrastwith,their dominantculturalvaluesand lifeexperiences. ThusJapanese visitorsare recontextualizing the valuesof Disneyland's parksthroughthe lensof theirown sociocultural valuesystems,andthe perspectives theymakearethustotallydifferentf romthoseof American visitorsto similarparks a conilnenlaway.

Thiscasesuggeststhat culturalvaluesin Japanandthe USAaresignificantly different.Do such significant differences existbetweenothercountries?

Organizationalknowledgeprocessesand the spanningof different businesssystems Lam (1,997),asdiscussedin Chapters6 and 11 (see,p. 78 and p. 1,62),identified significant differencesbetween the UK and Japanesecompanies she researchedboth in terms of the characterof their knowledge baseand the dyramics of their innovation processes.Other studiesby Lam (1994, 1996)also show significant differencesbetweenJapanand the UK in terms of how technical and knowledge-basedwork is organized. Lam (1997) suggestedthat the differencesbetween theJapaneseand UK companiesshe examined could be explained primarily by the different businesssystemsthat exist and operatein Japan and the UK. Lam's flndings flt within a broader stream of analysisthat considershow the characteristics of business systems, which vary signiflcantly across the globe, shape the work practicesand strategiesutilized by the companiesthat operatewithin them (Hall and Soskice2002;Whitley 1990,1999).As was discussedin Chapter 11, one specificsubtheme within this areafocuseson the existenceand characterof national systemsof innovation. Another broad strand within this broad perspectiveexamines how the character of businesssystemsaffectsthe characterand role of HRM functions in organizations(Ferner 1997;Ferneret al. 2001; Varul and Ferner2000).

K N O W L E D G EP R O C E S S E ISN M U L T I N A T I O N A L S

Table 13.2. Key institutionaldimensionsshapingthe characterof businesssystems lnstitutional dimensions of business systems

Examples

of market The degreeandcharacter regulation

ln the USA,labourmarketshavemuchweaker protectingworkers'rightsthanin other legislation countries

The extentof governmentownership in industry

In France,comparedto otherWesternEuropean countriessuchas the UK,the governmentstillhas levelsof ownershipin a numberof business significant sectors

The roleof tradeunionsin business decision-making andtheirrelations with businessmanagement

rolein In Germanytradeunionshavea significant businessdecision-making throughbeinggiven powerenshrinedin law significant bargaining

The roleof banksandfinancial in industry institutions

In Japanbankshavea powerfulroleat the headof groups,and havecloselinkswith large largeindustrial businessorganizations

systemandthe Thetype of financial demandsthey economicperformance placeon organizations

In the UKthe financialsystemplacespressureon businessesto focus on relativelyshort-term economicgoalssuchas sha.eprice

The term 'businesssystemr,as utilized by these writers, refers to the structure of social, political, and economic institutions that constitute and shape the environment within which businessorganizations operate. Key institutions in these structures include governments and financial institutions. Researchshows that these institutional structures vary significantly between different countries and regions, with Whitley (1999) developing a ty?ology of six distinctive types of businesssystemsmade up from sigrrificantly different institutional structures.Some of the key aspectsof the institutional structure that characterize business systems are outlined in Table 13.2, and include the nature and degreeof legal regulation, as well as the character of the financial system.

The'Japanization'of UK industry: the role of institutional factors suchas lean and philosophies the globaldiffusionof Japanesebusinesspractices Following practices production, havebeen therehavebeendebatesregarding the extentto whichsuch working Muchevidence suggests thatin the UKtheseJapanese customized to localconditions. 'selectpractices customized. Forexample, Taylor et al.(1994)referto the havebeensignificantly ive and uneven'adoption of Japanesepracticesin a detailedstudyof two UK organizations. (2000) in the UK foundthereto be in a studyexamining twenty-three companies Morriset al. 'considerable Theyfoundfor examplethat from the idealof Japanesepractices. divergence' and socialization, compatibility existedin terms of the careappliedto selection,recruitment,

@

OR G A N I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S practices but that the investment in trainingand 'hightrust'culturestypicalof Japanese were absent. Thiscustomization of Japanese workingpractices canbeexplained of the bythecharacteristics UK'sbusinesssystem.Thus,Morriset al. (2000)arguethat the differences they foundcould l a r g e lb y e e x p l a i n ebdy i n s t i t u t i o nfa lc t o r sE. l g e a r n dS m i t h( 1 9 9 41, 2 1 )a l s os u g g e stth a tt h e prevalent economicshort-termism in the UK and the generalunderfunding of trainingthis produces, hasbeena significant contextual factor,constraining theabilityof UKmanagers to fully implement Japanese methodsunaltered. Finally, in a studyof two Scarbrough andTeny(1998), c a rp l a n t si n t h e U KM i d l a n d sf o, u n dt h a tt r a d eu n i o n sh a da s i g n i f i c a rnot l ef o l l o w i ntgh e i m p l e mentation of Japanese workingpractices, whichwas anomalous with theirgeneralphilosophy, whichcouldbe explained by the differenthistorical rolesplayedby tradeunionsin Japanese and UKbusiness systems. Thusoverall, dueto the constraints andpressures imposedby the specificinstitutional characteristicsof the UK'sbusiness system,Japanese workingpractice andknowledge havenot been implemented andtransferred unaltered, but insteadhavebeensignificantly customized.

Knowledge processesthat span different businesssystems,as shown by Lam, can prove complex, due to the effect they have on the character and structuring of organizational knowledge. As the above example also shows, the sharing of knowledge across such boundaries can also result in it being changed and reconfigured. However, the general lack of attention to such issuesin the contemporary knowledge literature means that the relationship between business systemsand organizational knowledge processesis relatively uncharted.

Conclusion The fragmented and dispersed character of the knowledge base within multinationals means that there are potentially significant beneflts from effectively managing it. Thus the potential synergy that could be created from bringing together elements of this dispersed knowledge is enormous. This helps to explain why multinationals corporations have been some of the most enthusiastic adoptersof knowledge management initiatives. However, paradoxically, these same characteristicsof the knowledge basemake its managementan extremely complex and difficult task.This is due to both the sizeof the knowledgebasein these organizations, which means the knowledge baseis highly fragmented, combined with the fact that this knowledge is dispersedamong communities which can have different sociocultural values and which operatewithin distinctive businesssystems. One way in which multinationals can managetheir knowledge baseis through the way business is structured, with the chapter showing how hierarchical and network-based structures produce very different knowledge-sharing d;,namics. However, Birkinshaw et al.'s (2002) contingency perspectivesuggeststhat the dominant logic that suggeststhat network structures are inherently better for knowledge-sharing compared to hierarchical stluctures,in all situations,was challenged.

K N O W L E D GPER O C E S S EI N SI \ 4 U L T I N A T I O N A L S The chapter also consideredhow organizational size,a relatively neglectedtopic, affects the characterof knowledge processes.It was concluded that not only is organizational size directly related to the complexity of knowledge processes,but that organizational sizecan also fundamentally alter the characterof knowledge dynamics, through shaping the type of networks that people can develop and sustain. Finally, the chapter also considered the complexity of sharing knowledge between communities that are located in different and distinctive businesssystemsand where people possessdifferent sociocultural values. The sharing of knowledge across such boundariesis not a simple, direct transfeqasthe socioculturalvaluesthat peoplepossess shapethe way they interpret and understandthe knowledgeof others.Thus knowledgesharing in this context involves an active process of perspective-making whereby the knowledgeof others is understoodin relation to a person'sexisting values.Equally,the sharing of knowledge between people and communities who operate within different business systems was also not found to be straightforward, and typically involves the transformation and customizationof any sharedknowledge.

Hofstede(1988,2001)arguesthatdistinctnational culturescanbe identified. Towhatextent doesyourown personal experience confirmor challenge this?Further, do suchcultural differences significantly hinderprocesses of knowledge-sharing? FordandChan(2003), in oneof the few studiesto examinethe effectof cultural differences processes, knowledge on organizational foundthatlanguage competences significantly affectedsuchprocesses. In general, informalknowledge flowsweremostlikelywithin groups,while{ormalbusiness-related cultural communication was morelikelybetween . h a td o s u c hf i n d i n gssa ya b o u t h e i m p o r t a n coef p r o v i d i nl g c u l t u r aglr o u p sW anguage training as a way of dealing with the difficulties processes? of cross-cultural knowledge Theillustrative exampleof Dell{seep. 200)showedthatit hada centralized hierarchical structure, andutilized a codification-based knowledge management Towhatextent strategy. management aresuchknowledge strategies compatible with hierarchical structures? Further, wouldsucha knowledge management strategybe compatible with a network-based structu re?

'Managing M. Becker(2001). DispersedKnowledge: Organizational Problems,Managerial Strategiesand their Effectiveness',Journalof ManagementStudies,3\ll:1037-51 . Examineshow organizationalsize affects the characterof organizationalknowledge bases, as well as the most appropriatestrategies for managingknowledge. (2002).'Knowledge R. Nobel,andJ. Ridderstale J. Birkinshaw, as a Contingency Variable: Do the of KnowledgePredictOrganizational Characteristics Structure?'Organization Science,1313274-89 Providesan analysiswhich suggests that organizationalstructure needs to be sensitive to the characterof an organization'sknowledge base.

@

ORGAN I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S (2000).'Knowledgeflows within MultinationalCorporations', A. Guptaand V Govindarajan Strategic M anagement J ournal, 21: 473-96. Presents an objectivist perspective on the complexities of knowledge sharing in multindtional corporations. A-M. Soderberg and N. Holden(2002).'Rethinking CrossCulturalManagementin a Globalizing BusinessWorld', lnternationalJournal of Cross CulturalManagement,2li: 103-21. Drscussesthe challengesfor multinationalcorporationsof managingtheir knowledge basesin the contemporary bus/nessenvironme nt.

#ffiffi ge-intensive firmsand Knowled workers knowledge Introduction As was discussedin Chapter 1, many commentators and writers charactedzecontemporary society as being a knowledge society, with the impoltance of knowledge to work and economic activity having grown enormously in the last quarter of the twentieth century. The growing importance of knowledge to the world of work is also argued to have transformed both the characterof the work activities people undertake, aswell as the nature of organizations. Key to these transformations has been the growing importance of knowledgeworkers and knowledge-intensive firms. In fact, if contemporary society is a knowledgesociety,then almost by definition knowledge-intensivefirms and knowledge workers representconstituent elementsof it (Neef 1999). This chapter examines the dlmamics and characteristics of the knowledge processes within knowledge-intensive firms, which, as will be seen,ale many and varied. What is regardedas, arguably, the key characteristic of both knowledge workers and knowledgeintensive firms is their distinctiveness. Thus, knowledge-intensive firms are regarded as qualitatively and fundamentally different from other t)?es of organization. Therefore, the character and d;.rramics of knowledge processesin this organizational context are consequently also arguedto be distinctive. For example, the importance of the knowledge possessedby knowledge workers is typically argued to make the issue of retention and organizational loyalty of greater importance than it is for other types of worker. However, aswill be seenasthe chapter progresses,the topics of knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms are subjects that have been and continue to be extensively debated. Thus, for example, debate rages over definitions of knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms, the extent to which there has been an increasein the knowledge intensivenessof work, and whether knowledge workers are distinctive and require to be managed differently from other types of worker. The chapter begins by looking at how writing on knowledge workers and knowledgeintensive firms is typically embeddedin the knowledge societyrhetoric. Following this, an extended section examinesthe debateover definitions of knowledge work and knowledgeintensive firms. The third section then considers the character of knowledge processes within knowledge-intensive firms. The fourth section of the chapter examines the topic of what facilitates and inhibits knowledge workers to participate in organizational

@

I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S ORGAN knowledge processes.As will be seen,an interesting conclusion that emergesfrom much of the researchon knowledge workers, is how willing they appear to be to work and use their knowledge. Sections5 and 6 then conclude the chapter by considering the issuesof retention, which is argued to be quite particular to knowledge wotkets, and how to manage and support knowledge work.

The rise of the knowledge worker In the last quarter of the twentieth century, as discussedin Chapter 1, the characterof work changed enormously.The dominant perspectiveon the analysisof these changes suggeststhat they have increasedthe knowledge intensity of work through creating a greaterneed for intellectual skills,and the manipulation of abstractsymbols.Thus, these changes are argued to have produced an enormous expansion in the number of knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms. Such analysestypically utilize the postindustrial/knowledge society rhetoric and argue that not only has the number of knowledge workers increased, and the knowledge intensity of work gone up, but that knowledge is now the most significant sourceof competitive advantage,and that abstract and theoretical knowledge has taken on a heightened level of importance. However, such analyseshave not gone unchallenged. One writer who was among the first to popularize such analyseswas Robert Reich (Blackler1995;Ritkin 2000).Reich'sanalysiswasfocusedlargelyon the USA,but his argument wasrelevantto all of the most industrializedeconomies(Reich119).He arguedthat the shift towards high value-added, knowledge-intensive products and servicesin these economiesgaveriseto what he termed'$.'rnbolicanalysts'.Theseareworkerswho, firstly 'solve,identify and broker problemsby manipulating symbols'(778),and secondlyneed to make frequent use of establishedbodies of codified knowledge(182).Thus, typical of symbolic analytical occupations are research and product design (problem solving), marketing and consultancy (problem identification), and finance/banking (problem brokering). According the Reich'sanalysis,by the late 1980sthis categoryof work had grown to account for 20 per cent of employment in the USA, and was one of the USAs three key occupationalcategories.Statisticalanalysisfrom the UK suggeststhat the proportion of professional/knowledge-intensive workersin Britain wasalso20 per cent in the early 1990s(Eliasand Gregory1994).Finally,eventhosewho arecritical of the knowledge work/societyrhetoric acknowledgethe trajectoryof increasingknowledgeintensiveness. Thus, Knights et al. (1993)suggestthat knowledgework'is lessviable as an occupational classificationthan as a catch-phrasefor signalingcontemporarychangesin the organization of work in the direction of knowledgeintensiveness'(975).

20 per centof the workersin the most industrialized lf knowledgeworkersconstituteapproximately or is their to theseeconomieshasbeenexaggerated, nations,doesthis suggestthat theirimportance disproportional to theirnumbers? contribution to knowledgecreationandwealthgeneration

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E NF S II R VM ES While Chapter 1 presented a critique of the knowledge society rhetoric, the oitique is revisited and extended here. Three elements to the critique are presented here, all of which question the way the rise of the knowledge worker has been conceptualized. Firstly, while there has been a growth in knowledge-intensive occupations, there has simultaneously been a growth in relatively low-skilled and routine work (Elias and Gregory 1994;NSTF2000; Thompson et al. 2001).Thus, suggestionsthat the expansion of knowledge-intensive work is the only or main aspectin the contemporary restructuring of occupations are over-simplistic. Secondly,the suggestedlink between knowledge work and economic performance has also been questioned as being unproved. Thus, a 'the relamajor repolt by the OECD into the knowledge-basedeconomy suggestedthat, tion between knowledge creation and economic performance is still virtually unmapped' (1996,29),and in the flnal paragraphof its introduction concludesthat'our understanding of what is happening in the knowledge-basedeconomy is constrained by the extent indicators'(1996,8, emphasis in original). and quality of the available knowledge-related Finatly, another critique of the knowledge work/er rhetoric, drawing on Foucault's concept of power/knowledge (see Chapter 7) suggeststhat this rhetoric requires to be understood as less of an obiective/scientific statement, and more of a truth claim which attempts to legitimate contemporary social change as positive and emancipatory (Knights et a1.1993).

Definingand characterizingknowledge workers and knowledge-intensivefirms While the growing importance of knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms has been widely articulated, and has to a large extent become a taken-for-granted truth, providing a precise defi.nition of a knowledge worker or a knowledge-intensive firm, and describing their general characteristicshas proved much more difficult. Further, a lot of ink has been spilled in the debate that has developed in this area.This section begins by presenting the mainstream definition of these terms, before introducing the critique of this perspective,which leadsto another definition of the term knowledge worker'

andwhichinvolves innature, andnon-routine creative. intellectual, workisprimarily whose Someone ofknowledge. andcreation boththeutilization

Fundamentally, the mainstream perspective conceptualizes knowledge workers as constituting an elite and quite distinctive element of the workforce in contemporary economies,who are required to be highly creative and make extensive use of knowledge (particularly abstlact theoretical knowledge) in their day-to-day work' Thus, Reich's definition of symbolic analysts fits with such a conceptualization. Rifkin's (2OO0,1'74) 'creators, manipulators and purveyors of the definition of knowledge workers as the,

@

ORGAN I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S stream of information that makes up the postindustrial, post-service,global economy', also fits with such a conceptualization. From such definitions knowledge-intensive firms are defined as organizations that employ a significant proportion of such workers. Thus, one of the most widely used definitions of a knowledge-intensive firm is that provided by Alvesson(2000,1101)as,'companieswhere most work can be saidto be of an intellectual nature and where well-qualified employeesform the major part of the worKorce.'

Architects:the archetypal knowledge worker Firstly, theirwork is workersfor a varietyof reasons. as knowledge Architects canbe regarded to meet the non-routinized, involving the designof specificstructures creativeand relatively and particular requires the acquisition utilization architecture demandsof theirclients.Secondly, knowledge, suchas of scientificand engineering of an extensivebodyof abstracttheoretical and involves the integration principles Thirdly, architecture regarding the properties of materials. with considerations aesthetic knowledge, for example combining different bodies of synthesis of utilize andtypically principles. Finally, work at a highlevelof abstraction, architects engineering structures symbolsintheconductof theirwork,for examplein designing abstract andmanipulate them. beforebuilding

Based on such definitionsr an enormous range of occupations can be classified as knowledge work. Typical of the sort of occupations characterized as such are: lartyers (Hunter et aL.2002; Starbuck 1993), consultants (Robertson and Swan 2003; Empson 2001; Morris 2001),IT and softwaredesigners(Schulze2000; Swart and Kinnie 2003), advertising executives(Alvesson,Beaumont, and Hunter 2002), accountants (Morris and Empson 1998), scientistsand engineers(Beaumont and Hunter 2OO2;Lee et al. 1'997), architects(Blackler,quoting from Sveibyand Lloyd 1987;Frenkelet al. 1995),and artists and art directors/producers(Beaumont and Hunter 2002). Definitions of knowledge workers therefore overlap with and include the classicalprofessions(such as lawyers, architects, etc.), but also extend beyond them to include a wide variety of other occupations (such asconsultants,advertisingexecutives,IT developers,etc.).Scarbrough(1999) suggeststhat the main reason why knowledge workers do not represent a clear and distinct occupational category is that the knowledge intensification of work has been so widespreadthat it has affecteda broad swatheof diverseoccupations. One problem with the definitions of knowledge workers outlined is that they are somewhatvague.In an attempt to overcomesuchproblems,Frenkelet al. (1995)develop a more detailed definition, and conceptualizeknowledge work in relation to three dimen'original sions (seeTable 14.1).The first dimension, creativity,is defined as a processof problem solving', from which an original output is produced (779), with the level of creativity in work varying on a sliding scalefrom low to high. Thus work with a high level of creativity would include software design,where programmers design and produce new softwareto meet the specificrequirementsof their clients.The seconddimension is the

K N O W L E D GN ET - IE N S I VFEIR M S Table14.1.Frenkel et al.'sthreedimensional conceptualization of work (from F r e n k eelt a l ,1 9 9 5 ) Dimensions

Characteristics

Creativity

Measuredon a slidingscalef rom low to high

Predominant Formof KnowledgeUsed

Characterizes work as involving the use of two predominant formsof knowledge: 1. contextualknowledge 2. theoretical knowledge

Typeof Skillslnvolved

Characterizes work as involving threemalncategories of skill: '1 . intellective skills 2 . s o c i asl k i l l s 3. action-based skills

predominant form of knowledge used in work, with knowledge being characterized as being either theoretical or contextual. Theoretical knowledge representscodified concepts and principles, which have general relevance, whereas contextual knowledge is largely tacit and non-generalizible, being related to specific contexts of application. The third and final dimension is skill, with the skills involved in work being divided into three categories:intellective skills, social skills, and action-basedskills. Action-basedskills relate to physical dexterity, social skills to the ability to motivate and manage others, while intellective skills are defined as the ability to undertake abstract reasoning and synthesizedifferent ideas. Using these dimensions, as illustrated in Figure 14.1, Frenkel et al. (1995) define a knowledge worker as anyone who, 1. has a high level of creativity in their work, 2. requires to make extensive use of intellective skills, and 3. makesuse of theoreticalrather than contextual knowledge. Thus, architects, as describedpreviously, are classifledas knowledge workers using this model. On the other hand, skilled production workers are less likely to be defined as knowledge wotkers, as such work involves modest levels of creativiry requires more extensive use of action-basedrather than intellective skills, and where the predominant form of knowledge is contextual rather than theoretical.

A critique and a reformulation:all work as knowledge work and the concept of 'knowledge intensiveness' Explicitly embedded in Frenkel et al.'s conceptualization of knowledge work is the privileging of theoretical knowledge over contextual knowledge. Thus occupations that

@

@

O R G A NI Z A TO I NALCONTEXTS

Theoretical PREDOMINANT FORMOF KNOWLEDGE Contextual Low INTELLECTIVE High

work (from Frenkelet al. 1995) Fig.14.1.Frameworkfor conceptualizing

involve the use of high levelsof contextual knowledge, and low levelsof theoretical knowledge,such as the highly skilled flute makersexamined by Cook and Yanow (1993), are not classified as knowledge work by Frenkel et al. This privileging of abstract/theoretical knowledge is typical, either explicitly or implicitly, in the mainstream conceptualization of knowledge work, and provides the basisof one of the main critiques of such definitions. Sucha privileging of theoretical knowledge, and the useof the term 'knowledge worker' to refer to an exclusive group of workers, is a subiective and somewhat arbitrary definition. The main problem with such definitions is that they risk losing sight of the fact that all work is knowledge work to some extent (Allee 7997; Alvesson 2000; Grant 2000; Thompson et al. 2001). Knights et al. (1993), advance such an argument, drawing on Giddens's(1979) argument that all behaviour involves a processof self-reflexivemonitoring and is thus knowledgeable. Such arguments lead to an awarenessthat most types of work involve the development and use of tacit knowledge (KustererL978; Manwaring and Wood 1985). Further, Beaumont and Hunter (2000) report the findings of a study which concluded that knowledge generation/creation was not simply the domain of a small, elite group of workers, and that knowledge was created at all levels within organizations(Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al, 1998).

Example:the knowledgeability of bus-driving work.However, whenall that is definedas knowledge Bus-driving is not normally an occupation becomesmoreapparasequal,the knowledgeability of bus-driving typesof knowledge areregarded knowledge involves of formalandcodified abouttherulesand ent.Firstly, bus-driving theacquisition procedures knowledgeably on a dailybasisto Further, theseprinciples haveto be applied of driving.

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E NF S IIRVMES some driversrequire Secondly, thatthedriverencounters. icweatherandroadconditions thespecif when knowing for example vehicles, workingof their the mechanical regarding levelof knowledge require bus-drivers Thirdly, properly someformof maintenance. andrequires a vehicleis notrunning bus Finally, theyencounter. of passengers socialskillsto beableto copewiththediversity significant procedures rules and of organizational knowledge and apply to be ableto understand drivers-requlre targetstheyhavebeenset' so thatthevcancarryout theirworkto meetthe performance

as knowledgework. ln what ways doeslt that is not typicallyclassified Thinkof anotheroccupation to Wouldit be inaccurate of knowledge. possibly creation the even and application, the use, involve as beingknowledgework? describethis occupation

One way to take account of such insights, but maintain the idea that an elite category 'knowledge of knowledgeworkers existshas been the development and use of the term intensiveness'.Thus, while it can be acceptedthat all work is knowledge wolk, some work can be conceptualizedasmore knowledge-intensivethan other work (for example, architecturecomparedto bus-driving).However,asAlvesson(2000)makesclear,knowledgeintensivenessis a somewhatvague concept.Further,as Alvessonsuggestsin a later paper, 'any evaluation of "intensiveness//is likely to be contestable' (20Ot, 864), and there will thus always be room for debate on which occupations can be defined as knowledge-intensive.

2001) work (fromAlvesson to knowledge inherent Table14.2.Theambiguities Topic

Mainstreamperspective

Area of ambiguitY

what it is and Knowledge: what it is like?

Knowledgeis codified,obiective, ic scientif

sociallY Knowledgeis sublective, ic, constructed,context-sPeclf equivocal

of The significance knowledgeas an elemenl of knowledgework

knowledge Usinginstitutionalized andcreating systematically knowledgearethe coreactivities of knowledgeworkers

of The systematicutilizatlon formalbodiesof knowledge, cognitrve the needfor high-level arenot necessarllY capabilities elementsin the most significant knowledgework

The resultsof knowledge work

of the knowledge The contribution effortof knowledge and intellectual workersin the provisionof client s o l u t i o n sa,n di n u n d e r P i n n i tnhge of economicperformance f irms is knowledge-intensive regardedas transParent

The complexityof the work by knowledge undertaken workersmakesthe qualityof theiradvice/solutions/products and makes difficultto establish, establishment the unambiguous of the contributionof the efforts of knowledgeworkersto such products/services Problematic

@

O R G A NI Z A T I O N A LC O N T E X T S

Knowledgework and ambiguity Thus far this chapter has shown the ambiguity that exists in defining knowledge workers and knowledge-intensivefirms. Alvesson(2001),in an interestingcritique of the mainstream perspective on knowledge workers/knowledge-intensive firms, argues that such ambiguity actually represents one of the defining characteristics of the work done in knowledge-intensive flrms. The argument developed by Alvesson suggeststhat these mainstream conceptions aretoo closelywedded to oblectivist perspectiveson knowledge, and that greater account requires to be taken of the way knowledge is conceptualized from a practice-basedperspective.Fundamentally, Alvessonsuggeststhat doing so reveals three key areasof ambiguity that are irresolvable, and represent an intrinsic element of the work carriedout by knowledgeworkers(seeTable14.2).

Not'just a consultant': the ambiguous culture in a scientific consultancy Robertson and Swan(2003)describeand analysethe ambiguous character of the culturein a s m a l l s, c i e n t i f icco n s u l t a n cUy n , iversa co l nsulting U.n i v e r s aClo n s u l t i nw g ,h i c he m p l o y e d1 8 0 people(140of whom were consultants), developed scientific andtechnological innovations to problems. solveclient-generated Thecentralambiguity of itsculturewasthatwhileit hada strong culture,thisculturecelebrated andembraced diversity, heterogeneity, anda lackof standardization.Thus,paradoxically, a normthatwas stronglydefendedwas thattherewere no norms(for projectmanagement example, on dresscode,workpatterns, methods). Thiscanbe illustrated by looking at two of thesubelements performance of the culturethatRobertson andSwanexamine: management and recruitment andselection. ln termsof performance management, a balance betweencontrolandautonomywas achieved. Theconsultants hadhighlevelsof autonomyto decidetheirworkingpatternsandthe projectstheyworkedon. However, thiswas counterbalancedby a financially focusedsystemof annualrevenuetargetsfor eachconsultant. Theserevenuetargetswere important, as theywere usedto rankconsultants annually, with the ranking determining the levelof eachconsultant's pay rise.However,the preciseway in merit-based which rankingswere producedwas an opaqueprocess,not fully understood by most. The ambiguous natureof the culturewas alsovisiblein Universal Consulting's recruitment andselecpeoplewereselected tionprocedures. Primarily, paradoxifor theirfit with the culture.However, cally,selectionfor fit didn'tmeanthe selectionof cloneswho looked,acted,andthoughtthe same.Selection for fit meantselectingpeoplewho hada strongsenseof individuality. Thus quiteidiosyncratic Universal Consulting wasf ullof different, people,butwho wereallhighachieve r s ,a n dw h o a l lh a da s t r o n gs e n s eo f i n d i v i d u a l i si nmt h e m .T h i sa m b i g u i twya s n ' tr e g a r d eadsa problemby theconsultants. Infactit was highlyvalued. Thiswas primarily it allowedthe because consultants to balance differentidentities underpinned by differentvalues.Theconsultants typi(wheretheyaccepted callyhada senseof identityas bothconsultants the logicandrequirement for economic-based control), andas membersof a communityof elitescientists. Thusin interviewsthereweref requentstatements by the consultant's thattheywerenot 'justa consultant'. Theculturalambiguity in Universal Consulting actedas an effectivecontrolsystemas it allowed

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E NF S IIRVMES the consultants to maintainboth aspectsof their identityand mediatethe potentialtensions betweenthe company's needfor anelementof controlandthe consultant's desirefor highlevels of autonomy. Thusthe autonomyhadsustained theirsenseof identityas elitescientific experts, whilethe control-based systemsreinforced theiridentityas consultants

What doesthe roleof ArthurAndersen's auditors/accountants in the collapseof Enron,andthe difficultyof apportioning blamein the collapsesayaboutthe ambiguityinherentin evaluating the qualityof knowledge-intensive work?Forongoinginformation on the Enronsituationlookat either of the followingwebsites:http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/enronindex.html, http://www.thedailvenron.com/

Knowledgeand knowledge processesin knowledge-intensivefirms As the definitions section has made clear, the utilization of knowledge representsone of the deflning aspectsof the work undertaken in knowledge-intensive firms. Thus to understand the character of knowledge-intensive firms, and the knowledge management challengeswhich exist within them, it is necessaryto develop a fuller understanding of both the type of knowledge and knowledge processeswhich knowledge workers g.pically utilize and are involved with.

Types of knowledge In examining the types of knowledge of relevance to knowledge-intensive firms, the typology developedby Empson (2001)is useful (seeTable 14.3).Empson,whose focus is on professional service firms (specifically consultants and accountants), suggeststhat there are two main types of knowledge that workers in knowledge-intensive firms require to utilize: technical knowledge and client knowledge. The requirement for knowledgeintensive firms to provide specific/ customized products/servicesto meet the particular needs of their clients means that knowledge of the client, and the industry/sector they work in, is typically crucial and equally as important as technical knowledge. Thus, without a detailed knowledge of the client, a knowledge-intensive firm would not be able to provide an effectively customized product/service. One specifictype of client knowledge worth touching on is knowledge of specific individuals in client organizations (the last category in Table 14.3). Such knowledge representssocial capital (seeChapter 7), resourcesobtained through the network relations that individuals possess.The typically interactive nature of the work carried out by knowledge workers means that they often develop good relations with specific client staff (Alvesson 2000; Fosstenlokken et al. 2003). This knowledge, or social capital, is a key resourceto knowledge-intensive flrms, but is something they risk losing when the knowledge workerswho possesssuch knowledge/capital leave.As will be seenlater, this is another reason why the retention of knowledge workers is a key issuefor knowledge-intensive firms.

O R G A N I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S Table 14.3. Typesof knowledgeused by knowledgeworkers (from Empson200'1) Type of knowledge

Sub-categories

Description

Knowledge Technical

Sectoral

and Technical knowledge,commonlyunderstood sharedat a sectorallevelby stafffrom a rangeof companies.

Organizational

knowledge,suchof company Organization-specific products,processes, routrnes, andproceoures.

lndividual

Personal knowledgeacquiredthroughformal educationor work experience.

IndustryLevel

factors,suchas the Knowledgeof industry-level factorsshapingthe dynamicsof competition.

Company

suchas having Knowledge of specific organizations, to theircultures an understanding of andsensitivity andways of working.

lndividuals

with key Havinga knowledgeof andacquaintance individuals in specificorganizations.

ClientKnowledge

For example,in relation to engineeringconsultantsworking in the aerospaceindustry, industry-level technical knowledge could be knowledge of wing-vibration dynamics, which are well understoodand sharedacrossmost companiesoperating in the industry. Organizationallevel knowledgein this context could be an understandingof an organizational specific system/processfor testing wing-vibration dynamics. Finally, in the same context, individual technical knowledgewould be the expertisethat individual consultants had built up over time, for exampleconducting wing-vibration testsand analyses. Consideringthe example of film directors/producers,industry-levelclient knowledge would be knowledge of the factors at industry level that affect the chances of having a film funded, such asthe characteristicsof a typical-Holl)'wood blockbuster.Organizationallevel knowledge in this context would be an understanding of the speciflctastesand preferencesof particular fllm companies, such as Disney or United Artists. Finally, individual client knowledge would be having an acquaintancewith and understanding of important key individuals within particular companies who are able to influence decisions on the commissioningof films.

Knowledge processes The key knowledge processeswithin knowledge-intensive firms can be divided into three broad categories:knowledge creation/application,knowledge sharing/integration,and knowledgecodification,eachof which is briefly described. Knowl edg e creatio n/ap pl icati o n One of the key aspectsof the work in knowledge-intensivefirms is that it is typically not routine, repetitive work. Instead knowledge-intensivefirms provide customized,

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E NF S IRVI E VS speciflcally designed products/services,rather than off-the-shelf ones. For example, Robertsonand Swan (2003, 833) suggestone of the key characteristicsof knowledgeintensive firms is, 'their capacity to solve complex problems through the development of creative and innovative solutions'. The production/creation of such client_specific, customized solutions requiresand involves both the application of existing bodies of knowledge and the creation of new knowledge (Morris 2001). Kn owl edg e-sha ri n g/i nteg rati o n The development of client-specific, customized solutions involves more than the application and creation of knowledge: it also involves the sharing and integration of different bodies of knowledge, both between workers in knowledge-intensive firms, and between the knowledge-intensivefirms and staff from client organizations (Fosstenlokken et al. 2003). The importance of knowledge-sharing/integration processesexists at two levels. Firstly, much of the work done within knowledge-intensive firms is project based, and becauseof the typical complexity of the projects, such project teams are often multidisciplinary. In such situations, there is thus a need for the sharing and integration of the different types of specialist knowledge. The second way in which knowledge-sharing is important, which is a context examined in the example of the software company researched by Swartand Kinnie (2003),is the sharingof knowledgebetweenproject teams. Fundamentally, becauseproject teams createand develop specialistknowledge during the processof their work, there are advantagesto knowledge-intensivefirms if such knowledge can be sharedwith other, non-project staff. Kn owl edg e cod ifi cati o n Morris (2001) arguesthat, becauseof the advantagesto knowledge-intensivefirms of sharing project-specificknowledge and learning acrossthe organization,this acts as an incentive to knowledge-intensive firms to attempt to codify such knowledge and learning. Thus the codification of knowledge provides one specificway of sharing it within an organization(Quinn et al. 1996).Werr and Stjernberg(2003)also arguethat the codification of some knowledgehelps with the communication and sharingof tacit knowledge. Howevet, the difficulties of doing so are significant. Firstly, much of this knowledge is highly tacit, and is not amenable to codification. Secondly,much project knowledge is specializedand context-specific in nature, and has only limited generalrelevance.Finally, in an issueexamined more fully in the following section, knowledge workers may not be willing to facilitatethe codification of the specialistknowledgethey possess.

The willingness of knowledge workersto participatein knowredge processes:conflicting interests? As has been highlighted consistently throughout book, the effectivenessof organizational knowledge processesis predicated on the active and witling participation of workers in them. However,a worker's willingness to provide such efforts cannot be taken for granted. Theoretically, this is as true for knowledge workers as it is for other workers. However, as

@

I Z A TOI N A LC ON T E X T S ORGAN will be seenlater, empirical evidenceon knowledge workers shows them to be commonly prepared to work extremely hard for their employers, which suggeststhat motivation to work may be lessof an issuefor such workers.Whether this is the case,and the factors that affect the willingness (or otherwise) of knowledge workers to participate in knowledge processesris the focus of this section, which begins by considering the factors that may inhibit the willingness of knowledge workers to participate in organizational knowledge plocesses.

Inhibiting factors As was discussedin Chapter 4, the potential for conflict between workers and their employers in inextricably embeddedin the employment relationship. Scarbrough(1,999) argues that the employment relationship involves balancing contradictory tensions between the benefits to both worker and employer of cooperation, and potential conflicts between them over whether and how economic gains are derived from such efforts, and the way they are divided. Alvesson (2000) atso arguesthat such potential conflicts also exist, but, for reasons discussedlater, suggeststhan such conflicts are less pronounced than between other t!?es of employee and their employers. Another factor examined in Chapters 4 and 7, which can inhibit the willingness of knowledge workers to participate in knowledge processes,is the potential for intraorganizationalconflict betweenworkersor work groupswhich exists(Quinn et al. 1996). Also, Alvesson(2000) suggeststhat people may have multiple identities that may be in conflict (such as to a work group, and the employer, or to a profession and the employer). Further, such conflicts are as likely in knowledge-intensive firms as in other types of organization. Thus Starbuck (1993) described the knowledge-intensivecompany he examined as being, 'internally inconsistent, in conflict with itself. . . . An intricate house of cards'.Finally,Empson (2001)presentedan exampleof a knowledge-intensivefirm in a post-mergersituation, where workersfrom the two pre-mergercompanieswere unwilling to share their knowledge with each other.

Conflict in an art gallery: commercial considerationsversus a public-sectorethos B e a u m o natn dH u n t e(r2 0 0 2e)x a m i n etdh em a n a g e m eonfta c o l l e c t i oonf a r tg a l l e r i easn, df o u n d thatfollowingthe implementation of morecommercially orientated workingpractices andfunding procedures conflictemergedbetweenthesenew commercial values,andthe morepublic sectorethosmaintained by a numberof the galleries' keyknowledge workers.Thepublicly managedorganization examined was responsible for four differentart galleries, whichemployeda totalof over800staff.Whileonethirdof thisstaffwas low-paid wardersandgalleryassistants, most of the staff,consisting of collections and restoration staff,couldbe described as being knowledge workers.Theintroduction of commercially orientedmanagement valuesandsystems

K N O W L E D GN ET . IE N S I VFEIR M S fundingfor the galleriesbeingreducedfrom 100 per cent to 50-60 resultedin government percent,with the restto be raisedthroughfundraising. galleries were set performance targetsregarding the numberof visitorsthey Simultaneously, underthe historical systemof full publicfunding,whilepaylevelshad shouldhave.Traditionally, potential staffhadhad andrestoration was limited,the collections notbeenhigh,andpromotion professional younger andrestoraWhile many the collection amountof autonomy. of a significant focusedculture,mostof the older the new,morecommercially tionstaffwerehappyto embrace thatthe performance Firstly, theyperceived staffwereagainstit.Thiswas for two mainreasons. Secondly, theirautonomy. to find commercial fundinghaddiminished targetsand requirement art.Thus, also dumbed down theirexpeitise, but theyalsofeltthatthesevaluesnotonlydevalued valuesof theolder focusedculturechallenged the professional the movetowardsa commercially staff. collections andrestoration

What couldgallery Couldthis conflicthavebeenavoidedthroughbetteror differentmanagement? havedoneto minimizeor avoidthisconflict? management

Knowledge workers: the ideal workers? While the previous section considered the factors which can create an unwillingness among knowledge workers to participate in knowledge processes/other evidence suggests such workers are prepared to invest significant amounts of time and effort into their work, and that motivating them to do so is not difficult (Alvesson 1995; Deetz 1998; Kunda 1992; Robertsonand Swan 2003). As these workers are preparedto make such efforts, with minimal levels of supervision, and without regarding such effort as being problematic, Alvesson suggestssuch workers representthe ideal subordinates(2000, 1104), and suggestsfour reasonswhy knowledge workers are prepared to make such efforts: 1. they find their work intrinsically interesting and fulfilling; 2. such working patterns representthe norms within the communities they are a part of; 3. a senseof reciprocity, whereby they provide the organization with their efforts in return for good pay and working conditions; 4. such behaviour reinforces and confirms their senseof identity as a knowledge worker, where hard work is regardedas a fundamental component. Robertsonand Swan (2003) provide a further explanation: the structure of the employment relationship is lessclear than for other workers, and the potential for conflict on the basis of it thus becomesdissipated. Primarily they suggestthat the employer-employee, manager-managed relationship is not as clear cut in knowledge-intensive firms as in other, more hierarchically based organizations. In knowledge-intensive firms such boundaries arefuzzy, and evolve over time, and therefore the interests of employers and employeesare more likely to be in common.

@

O R G A NI Z A TO I N A L C ON T E X T S

Managing knowledge workers: balancingautonomy and control Managing knowledge workers and motivating them to participate actively in organizational knowledge processesinvolves maintaining a delicate balance between control and autonomy. As will be seenin the following section, knowledge workers typically demand and expect high levels of autonomy in their working conditions and work patterns. Simultaneously, knowledge-intensive firms require to have some level of management conttol, to ensurethat the efforts of their workforce are economically viable and sustainable (for example, providing the flrm with regular profits). In Universal Consulting, the company examined by Robertsonand Swan (2003) that was examined previously in this section, such a balancewas managed through the use of a deliberately ambiguous culture. Overall however, managing the delicate balance between the simultaneous and potentially contradictory need for both control and autonomy, makes the management of knowledge workers a complex and difficult process.

Knowledgeworkers and the problem of retention As illustrated, while some empirical evidence suggeststhat motivating knowledge workersto participatein organizationalknowledgeprocesses doesnot appearto be a problem, developing their organizational loyalty such that they remain working with their employersfor extendedperiods,does appearto be more problematic. This is to a large extent becauselabour market conditions, where the skills and knowledge of knowledge workers are tlpically relatively scarce,createsconditions for knowledge workers which are favourable to mobility (Flood et al. 200I; Scarbrough 1999). However, there is a general consensusin the literature on knowledge workers that having a high turnover rate is a potentially significant problem for knowledge-intensive firms (Alvesson2000; Beaumont and Hunter 2002; Flood et al. 2000; Lee and Maurer 1997).Firstly,this is a potential problem becausethe knowledgepossessed by knowledge workers is typically highly tacit. Therefore, when they leave an organization, they take their knowledge with them. For example, one key sourceof knowledge possessedby knowledge workers is social capital, their knowledge of key individuals (for example in client organizations). The need for knowledge workers to work closely with client organizations meansthat they often develop closerelationswith important client staff.Thus, when suchworkersleave,there is a risk for their employerthat they will losetheir clients aswell. The secondmain reasonwhy poor retention ratesmay be a problem for knowledgeintensive firms is that the knowledge, skills, and experience possessedby knowledge workers is often a crucial element in organizational performance. Alvesson (2000) arguesthat one of the best ways to deal with the turnover problem is to create a senseof organizational loyalty in staff, particularly through developing their senseof organizational identity. Alvesson identifies two broad types of loyalty and four strategiesfor developing them (seeTable14.4).The weakestform of loyalty is instrumentalbasedloyalty, which is when workers remains loyal to their employer for as long as they

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E N S IFVIE RMS Table 14.4' Typeof loyaltyand strategiesfor developingthem (basedon Alvesson2000) Type of loyalty

Strategyfor development

Means of development

lnstrumental-based Loyalty

Financial Strategy

Providing employeeswith goodpayand fringebenefits.

Institutional-based Strategy

Developing a visionandset of values and encouraging employeesto identify with them.Achievedthroughculture management, visionbuilding,use of stories.

Communitarian-based Strategy

Developing a senseof communityand socialbondingamongstworkers. Achievedthroughuse of socialevents and meetingswhichbringpeople togetherandallowthem to develop strongrelations with, and knowledgeof eachother.

SociallyIntegrative Strategy

A combination of the institutionaland communitarian-based strategies.

fdentification-based Loyalty

receive specific personal benefits, with one of the most effective ways of developing such loyalty being through pay and working conditions. The secondand stronger form of loyalty is identification-based loyalty, which is loyalty based on workers having a strong senseof identity as being members of the organi zation, and where they identify with the goals and obiectives of their organization. The three strategiesfor developing identification-based loyalty are illustrated in Table 14.4. This type of loyalty is typically not developed through financial tewards, and is instead built through developing a culture that workers can buy into, creating a senseof community amongst staff, or both.

l.::.::.LL:lil.:::*.:.".

d stratesyfor devetopinsloyalty:an HRconsuttancy

CheshireConsultants are an HR consultancy firm basedin the NorthWest of England, which particularly specializes in the areaof recruitment and selectionand employeedevelopment. cheshireconsultants is a smallcompany, employing onlytwelveconsultants plussomesupport_ ingadministrative andmanagement staff.lts consultants coujd be described as mobileteleworkers,as for muchof theirworkingweektheyareout of the office,visitingandworkingat various clientlocations. Thus,theseworkpatterns meanthatduringthecourseof theirnormalday-to-day work,therearelimitedopportunities for the consultants to interact with eachother.However, to counteract (2000)labelled this,whatAlvesson a communitarian_based strategyis utilized to rein_ forcesocialrelations andsustaina senseof communityidentityamongststaff.Thiswas done throughtwo main mechanisms. Firstly,the owner/managing directorof the companymade effortsto maintaincontactwith all consultants on an almostdailybasis,partlyto supporttheir

I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S ORGAN work and provideadvice,but alsoto simplysustainsocialcontactswith them.Thesecontacts Thesecondstrategywasto positive andhelpfulby mostconsultants. astypically wereregarded socialin purpose,andwhichwere never haveregularmonthlymeetingswhichwere primarlly foundthatthisstrategyhelped of work.Mostconsultants by demands or compromised cancelled eventhough community, them to sustaina senseof identityas membersof an organizational thevsoentmostof theirtimeout of the office.

loyalty,derivedthroughpayandfinancialrewardsis arguedto be a weakform of Instrumental-based of is payand relatedfinancialrewardin the development loyalty.Do you agree?How significant loyaltyandcommitment? organizational

HRM policiesto motivate knowledge workers This final section examines the way organizations can motivate knowledge workers and facilitate their work through the specific HRM policies that they utilize. However, before doing this, the section begins by examining the debate regarding whether knowledge workers require to be managed differently from other types of worker.

Specialtreatment for knowledge workers? The mainstream perspective on the management of knowledge workers is that they represent a distinctive and important part of the workforce and thus require a form of management different to that used for other workers (Alvesson 2000; Robertson and O'Malley-Hammersley2000;Tampoe1993).The factorsthat aretypically arguedto make knowledge workers a distinctive element in an organization's workforce are: o they are typically very highly qualified, and also require to continually develop their knowledge; r their knowledge and skills are particularly important to organizational performance; o their knowledge and skills are difficult to codify and are typically highly tacit; r their knowledge and skills are typically scarceand highly valued in labour markets, making it relatively straightforward for knowledge workers to change jobs; and o their work tasks, focused as they are on the creation, utilization, and application of knowledge, are highly specializedin nature.

levelsof lf knowledgeworkersdo receivespecialtreatmentby theiremployersin termsof favourable who don't make workers likely to is this levels autonomy, pay,goodworkingconditions, high of and Further, knowledgeprocesses? fullyin organizational receivesuchtreatmentlesslikelyto participate performance? couldsuchattitudeshavea negativeeffecton organizational

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E NF S IIRVMES However, this perspective has been criticized by a growing number of writers, who typically base their analysis in the perspective that all workers should be regarded as knowledge workers (Allee 1997; Beaumont and Hunter 2ooz; Garvey and williamson 2002). The general critique of the 'distinctiveness' argument is that such approachesnegIect the fact that if all workers are knowledge workers, then the knowledge of all workers is important to organizational performance. Further, these writers argue that organizations that utilize such an approach and treat knowledge workers as special and distinctive, face a number of risks. Firstly, there is the risk that such divisive policies may lead to the development of a senseof tesentment among the workforce that do not receivethese favourableconditions. Secondly,and relatedly,there is the risk that as a consequenceof such attitudes, these workers having a low level of loyalty and commitment to their organization, being lesswilling to share their knowledge, or generally being lesswilling to work as productively as possible.

Facilitating knowledge work via HRM While much has been written about knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms, surprisingly there are still only a relatively small number of papers which examine in detail HRM issues related to the management of knowledge workers (Alvesson 2000; Beaumont and Hunter 2002; Quinn et al. 1,996,Robertsonand o,Malley-Hammersley 2000; Robertson and Swan 2003; Swart and Kinnie 2003; Tampoe 1993). However, from these few studies there is a general consensusregarding the most effective ways to facilitate the work of knowledge workers. Recru itm ent an d selectio n Attention to recruitment and selectionproceduresis regardedas important. This is not only to ensure that people with appropriate skills and knowledge are recruited, but also that the people recruited have a willingness to share their knowledge appropriately, and that the attitudes and behaviours of new recruits are likely to be comDatible with the existing organizational culture. Providing rewarding and fulfilling work Another factor identified as being important to knowledge workers is that the work they have should be intrinsically satisfying and stimulating, and provide them with constant challenges. Autonomy As well as work being intrinsically interesting, knowledge workers also typically regard having high levels of autonomy over their work tasks,and working patterns asimportant. As discussedpreviously however, managing the delicate balancing between providing autonomy and maintaining some level of control is likely to be one of the greatest challengesfor those managing knowledge workers.

@

ORGAN I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S Op po rtu n iti es fo r pe rson a I d eveIop m ent Finally, providing knowledge workers with constant opportunities to continue their personal development, for example through training and education, representsanothel way of motivating knowledge workers. While such a strategy is a potentially doubleedged sword, as supporting such activities potentially makes it easierfor staff to leave, without supporting continued development, staff may be likely to leave any'way.

HR practicesto facilitate organization-wide knowledge-sharing Swart and Kinnie(2003)examineda small software company in the South East of England,and identifieda number of HR practicesthat appearedto be effectiveat facilitatingorganization-wide knowledge-sharing. The companyexaminedemployedlessthan fifty staff,and providedbespoke software solutionsto meet the particularneeds of their clients. Staff typicallyworked within short-termprojectteams, being allocatedto these teams on the relevanceof their knowledge, and on the extentof their priorexperience.lt was recognizedby companymanagementthat there were potentialadvantagesto management if the knowledgeand learninggained within each projectteam could be sharedwith others.To achieveand facilitatethis, a numberof mechanlsms were utilized.Firstly,recruitmentand selectionprocedureswere used to try and identifystaffthat would be willingto sharetheir knowledge.Secondly,a mentoringsystem was used. ln the mentoringscheme seniorstaff were allocatedtwo or three mentees each,with these relationsbeing set up to ensurethat mentorsand menteesdidn't work in the same projectteams.Thus,through the mentoring scheme project-specificlearningwas shared more widely. Organization-wide knowledge-sharing was also encouragedvia the company'sperformancemanagementsystem. Partof the performancemanagementsystem was used to determineindividualmerit-basedpay rises.However,anotheraspectof it was developmentalin focus, where staff were encouraged to reflect on learningand considerdevelopmentneeds.As with the mentoringscheme, these biannualdevelopmentreviews spanned project boundaries,and helped share project-learning m o r e w i d e l y .F i n a l l ya, n u m b e ro f c o m m u n i c a t i o m n e c h a n i s m s( s u c ha s e l e c t r o n i cn e w s g r o u p s ) , and regularsocialevents spannedprojectboundaries,and were open to all staff, which helped staff to get to know each other and developa sense of community.

Gonclusion The importance of knowledge workers and knowledge-intensive firms is closely tied to the rhetoric regarding the contemporary rise and emergenceof the knowledge sociery which has not gone unquestioned.In the debateover defining knowledgeworkers and knowledge-intensive firms, two perspectiveswere shown to exist. While the mainstream perspective suggeststhat knowledge workers are a distinctive and elite element in the contemporary workforce, others argue that this neglects accounting for the extent to which all work is knowledge work, and thus how all workers can be defined as knowledge

K N O W L E D G E - I N T E NF S IIRVMES workers. However, what appearsto distinguish knowledge workers from other workers is the character of the work activities they undertake, which are focused on the intensive creation, application, and utilization of knowledge. On the topic of what motivates knowledge workers to effectively share and utilize their knowledge, knowledge workers aswith minimal level of supervision appearto be almost the ideal subordinates/workers, they are quite often willing to work extremely hard, and don't regard this as being problematic. However, developing the organizational loyalty of knowledge workers is more problematic, with high levels of job mobility being common among knowledge workers. Finally, on the topic of managing knowledge workers, and facilitating their work, the provision of interesting work, high levels of autonomy, and continuous opportunities for personal development appear to be key. However, the demands/expectationsof knowledge workers for high level of autonomy createstensions with the need for managersin knowledge-intensive firms for some level of control. Managing this delicate balance representsone of the key challengesfor those managing knowledgeworkers.

work is definedas workwherethe of work,knowledge ln Frenkel et al.'sconceptualization However, doesthisunderestimate predominant is theoretical knowledge. formof knowledge Thinkof a knowledge? the useof contextual the extentto whichsuchworkalsoinvolves the extentto whichcontextual occupation, andconsider specificknowledge-intensive is likelyto be important. knowledge work,or doesthe term intensiveness a useful conceptfor definingknowledge ls knowledge to be useful? containtoo muchambiguity

r

'KnowledgeWork:Ambiguity,lmageand ldentity',HumanRelations, 5417: M. Alvesson(2001). 863-86. Good discussion,analysis,and citique of the mainstreamIteratureon knowledgeworkersand knowledge-intensive firms. 'Control-What Control?'CultureandAmbiguitywithina andJ. Swan(2003). M. Robertson Firm',Journalof ManagementStudies,4014:831-58. Knowledge-lntensive Containsa detailed examinationof the role of culture in knowledge intensive firms, based on an analysisof a case studYcompanY. 'social ldentityandthe Problemof Loyaltyin Knowledge-lntensive M. Alvesson(2000). Companies',Journalof ManagementStudies,3718:1101-23. tnterestingpaper on how the management of identity can be used to address the problem of loyaltv in knowledge-intensivefirms. 'Sharing Ftrms',HumanResource Knowledgein Knowledge-lntensive J. Kinnie(2003). Management Journal, 1312:60-7 5. An anatysisof a singte case study focusing on how HRM practices can be used to facilitate intra-organizationaI know Iedge-sharing.

ffiffiffi Conclusion lntroduction The purpose of this concluding chapter is not to summarize the arguments stated in the book. Instead, it will focus on dealing with some generalquestions that hang over knowledgemanagement like accusations(asboth a practice and a body of writing) questioning its usefulnessand even its viabitity. The objective of this chapter is therefore to examine and discussthese criticisms. Thesecriticisms can be embodied into three questions, each of which is dealt with. Firstly, questions have been raised regarding the quality, intellectual coherence,and rigour of much of the writing on knowledge management. Secondly, 'knowledge manageperhaps the potentially most challenging criticism is that the term ment' can be argued to be an ox).rnoron, raising questions regarding the viability of knowledge management as an organizational practice. Finally, knowledge management has been accusedof being the latest in an apparently unending stream of management fashions, and that interest in the topic is thus likely to wane rapidly in the near future. Section 1 of the conclusion therefore discussesthe question of the quality of the writing on knowledge management. In doing so firstly it has to be acknowledged that it is hard to talk in general terms about this work as it is so diverse in character.However, this section concludesthat, basedon the evidencepresentedin the book, it cannot be said that all the writing on the topic is weakly conceptualized,as a significant proportion of it is robust in this respect. Section 2 moves on to consider the secondquestion, that of the viability of knowledge managementasan organizational practice.However,it is first necessaryto acknowledgethe diversity of strategiesand philosophies of knowledge management that exist. For example, Chapter 9 outlined the two knowledge management strategresof personalization and codification describedby Hansenet al. (1999).Further,Alvessonand Karreman (2001) develop an even more detailed tlpology of knowledge management strategies(seeFigure 15.1), each of which is related to a particular style of management.Thus questionsregarding the viability of knowledgemanagement require to take account of this diversity.However,such an enormous task is beyond the scopeof this book and is not attempted here. Instead, more general issuesrelated to the viability of knowledge management are considered.In criticisms regarding knowledge management two specificissuesemergeas potentially problematic. Firstly,doesthe nature of knowledge itself make it unmanageable? Secondly,to what extent are the interests of workers and organizations in such processes compatible?

I NALCONTEXTS O R G A NI Z A TO

Mode of managerialintervention Control Co-ordination Social

Community (sharing of ideas)

Normative control (prescribed interpretations)

Mediumof interaction Extendedlibrary (informationexchange)

Enacted blueprints (templates for action)

TechnostructuraI Fig. 15.1. A typology of knowledge management strategies (from Alvesson and K a r r e m a n2 0 0 1 )

The third and final section of the chapter goesbeyond these debatesand the general content of the book. This section begins by discussingthe question of whether knowledge managementcan be characterizedas an ephemeral,passingfashion of limited substance. After this the section broadensout to consider the context in which knowledge on knowledgemanagementis producedand consumed.This is usefulasit givesan insight into the specific agents and processesthrough which the ideas and practices of knowledge managementexaminedin the book have emerged.

Reflectionson the knowledge management literature As has been seenthroughout the book, a diversity of perspectivesexists on virtually every aspect of knowledge management. From definitions of what knowledge is, through the role of IT systemsin knowledgemanagementinitiatives, to the way communities of practice should be managedand supported,debatesand disagreementsexist.Thus, it is hard to make general statements regarding the quality of writing on the topic, as the knowledgemanagement literature is not coherent in character.In fact, one of the defining characteristics of the literature on knowledge management is the plurality and diversity of perspectivesthat exist and continue to thrive. Nevertheless,this difficult task is attempted here, through discussing and commenting on two papers which have made generalizing statements about the character and quality of the literature on knowledge management(Swanand Scarbrough2001; Alvessonand Karreman2OOl). SwanandScarbrough(2OOl),intheeditorialintroductiontoaspecialissueoftheloumzl of ManagementStudieson knowledge management, lament what they characterizeas the uncritical and unreflexive nature of the mainstream literature on knowledge management. Such literature is typicaUy based on an oblectivist perspective on knowledge (seeChapter 2) and unproblematically characterizesknowledgeasan economic commodity,

CONCLUSION Table15.1.Problems with conceptions of knowledge in the'popular'knowledge management (fromAlvesson literature andKarreman 2001) Problem

Problemdescription

Ontological Incoherence

Blendingtogetherof incompatible constructivist andobjectivist views of knowledge-forexampleNonaka(1994)

Vagueness

Lackof distinctness regarding the contentandcharacter of knowledge in organizations

All-embracing and Empty View of Knowledge

All-encompassing definitions of knowledgehavelittleclarityand make possibilities for conceptual insightsdifficult-for exampleDavenport and Prusak(1998)

Objectlvity

Typically utilizeobjectivist definitionsof knowledgeunproblematically

Functionalism

Unproblematically assumesthat havingknowledgeand managing knowledgeis a goodthingand neglectsto dealwith potentialnegative aspectsof both havingor managingknowledge:knowledgeas simultaneously enablingand constraining

failing to discussthe socially constructed, political, subjective, context-dependent, and dynamic characteristicsof knowledge (seeChapter 3). Further, such literature is strongly managerialist in tone, being typically quite prescriptive, concerning itself with questions of how knowledge can be managed,rather than questions of can ot should Itbe managed. Alvesson and Karreman (2001) are even more scathing regarding what they call the 'popular' knowledge management literature. However, one weaknesswith Alvesson and Karreman's analysis is that they are not very explicit about the types of work they are criticizing, giving only a few examples. The main focus of their criticism relates to the way, 'knowledge', 'management', and 'knowledge management, are conceptualized. While management as a concept is typically not defined or discussedin any detail in this literature, there are five specific problems with the way knowledge is conceptualized (seeTable 15.2). Fundamentally, they argue that conceptualizations of knowledge in this literature are generally weak, sloppy, contradictory, and do not stand up to rigorous criticism. This generalline of argument is agreedwith by Edwardset al. (2003).

Pickan exampleof a popular,mainstream pieceof writingon the topicof knowledgemanagement Towhat extentarethe five problemsof conceptualizing knowledgeidentifiedby Alvessonand (200'1 Karreman ) relevantto it?

While the dominance of mainstream perspectiveswas true when Swan and Scarbrough and Alvesson and Karreman wrote their critiques, this has arguably become lesstrue over time, as the debates on knowledge management have matured. Thus, as this book demonstrates, a strong and vibrant body of critical work on knowledge management exists and has usefully questioned and challenged the assumptions of mainstream,

ORGAN I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S managerialist perspectives.However/ this is not to say that the literature on knowledge management in its totality, encompassingboth mainstream and critical perspectives,is not without its problems. One of the main weaknessesof this body of work is that even now the topics of power and conflict are still relatively neglected.Thus, the lead taken by those writers examined in Chapter 7 to account for such issueswhen examining knowledge management has tlpically not been followed by a significant number of writers.

Knowledge management:viable organizationalpractice or a contradictionin terms? As was outlined earlier, organizational attempts to manage knowledge cannot be characterizedas unitary. In fact, as illustrated (seeFigure 15.1),there are a diversity of philosophies and strategieswith regard to how organizations should manage their knowledge. This section does nof attempt to compare and evaluatethe effectivenessof these different strategies.Instead,this section considersthe more generalquestion of whether knowledge managementis viable as an organizationalpractice.This question can be divided into two elements. Firstly, do the inherent characteristicsof knowledge make it difficult to control and manage?Secondly,to what extent are the interests of business organizations and their employeeswith regard to the objectives and outcomes of organizational knowledge processescompatible? If answered in the negative, both factors bring into question the generalviability of organizational attempts to managetheir knowledge base.

ls knowledge manageable? The vast majority of the knowledge management literature builds on the assumption that knowledgeis a resourceamenableto managementcontrol (Scarbrough1999, 9). In fact this representsprobably the most fundamental assumption underpinning the viability of knowledge management. Without this ability, the feasibility of knowledge management becomes questionable. However, a number of writers suggestthat some of the intrinsic characteristics of knowledge make it difficult to control and manage in a direct and straightforward sense.Thesecharacteristicsof knowledge include: o its ambiguity and dynamism (Alvessonand Karreman 2001), o its variety and diversity (McAdam and McCreedy 2O00), . its invisibility and immeasurability (Sooet al.2OO2),and . its inseparability from human beliefs and values (von Krogh et al. 2000). However, while knowledge may not be amenable to direct control, these critics typically acknowledge that when the term 'management' is used in a looser sense,organizational management does have some ability to shape and influence knowledge processes.For example,while von Krogh et al. (2000) arguethat knowledge cannot be directly managed, this is more a semantic critique of the term 'management' than a suggestion that all attempts by organizational management to shape knowledge processesare doomed to

CONCLUSION failure. Von IGogh et al. (2000) are in fact very positive that there is much organizational managementcan to enableknowledgeprocesses. Ratherthan the term'knowledge man'knowledge agement', they prefer the term enablement'. Von Krogh et al.'s (2000, 17) perspectiveis summed up in the following quote, 'while you may be able to managerelated organizational processeslike community building and knowledge exchange,you cannot manageknowledge itself.'Von Krogh et al. thus suggest that in an indirect way, through utilizing/shaping people-centred processesand polices (they use the term 'caring' for people) organizational management has the ability to persuade workers to manage their knowledge towards the achievement of organizational objectives. Therefore, rather than suggesting that knowledge management is totally unfeasible, von Itogh et al. are instead advocating something closer to a communitybasedapproachto knowledgemanagement(seeFigure15.1). In general, such a perspectiveis reinforced by the material presentedin the book, where the importance of human, social, and cultural factors to knowledge management processeshas been highlighted. Therefore, while it is misguided to suggestthat knowledge management is about the direct manipulation by organizational management of an easily controllable resource, this does not mean that organizational management is totally powerlessto shapeorganizational knowledge processesat all. Where the von Krogh et al. (2000) perspectiveis weak, is on issuesof power, politics, and conflict. Thus they typically assumethat with the right management strategy,organizational objectives and workers' interests can be aligned, making workers willing to use and share their knowledge in organizational knowledge processes.However, when the insights developed in Chapters 4 and 7 are taken account of (relating to the potential for conflict intrinsic to the employment relationship, as well as the embeddednessof power in the employment relationship), such an assumption can be questioned. Theseissuesare examined in the following section.

Contradictory outcomes and objectives from organizational knowledge processes? Fuller (2002, 2) arguesthat, 'the dark secretof this freld [knowledge management] is that its name is an oxymoron, for as soon asbusinessentersthe picture, the interestsof knowledge and management trade off against each other'. Ultimately he arguesthat the interests of businessin making short-term economic gains from the use of knowledge clash with other objectives and outcomes from the use of knowledge. If this were true, it would representanother significant question regarding the viability of knowledge management as an organizational practice. When consideredin the broadest terms, there is an enormous variety of objectives and outcomes from organizational knowledge processes,for individuals, organizations, and society in general (seeTable 15.2). Further, as discussedin Chapters 4 and 7, the potential for conflict between workers and their employers is embedded in the employment relationship, which typically involves a power imbalance that favours the interests of businessmanagers/ownersover workers. These factors combined therefore suggestthat the potential for conflict between organizational and other objectives from knowledge

@

@

O R G A NI Z A TO I NALCONTEXTS Table 15.2. Outcomesand objectivesof organizational knowledgeprocesses Level

Outcome/Objective

lndividual

r Change/improvement in statusand recognition r Materialreward(forexampleimprovedpay,financialbonuses,holidays, working conditions) . Senseof fulfilmentfrom the processitself,or the achievement of desired outcomes r Expresslon of commitment,or senseof obligation, to a group,profession, or organization

Organization

o . . I

Society

r The advancementof knowledge . lmprovesocialconditions o Developmoreeffectivepublicpoliciesfor local/national governments

Profrt Marketshare lmproveinnovativeness Cost reduction/control

processes is significant.Thus, aswas illustratedin Chapter 4, a wide rangeof factorswill shape the attitudes of workers towards participating in organizational knowledge processes. This perspective,that the potential for conflict will inhibit the effectivenessof knowledge management initiatives, is undermined by the innumerable casesexamined where workers have been willing to participate in organizational knowledge processes.The most extreme caseof such willingness, discussedin Chapter 14, is of knowledge workers, many of who seem happy to work enormously hard for their organizations without regarding such behaviour asproblematic. Thus, while the potential for conflict existsin the employment relationship, this doesnot mean that conflict between workers and their employers is inevitable, or that their interests are always divergent and incompatible. Scarbrough (1999,7) arguesthat such behaviour on the part of knowledgeworkerscan be explained by the relatively instrumental attitude to work of such workers, who are often primarily concerned with issuesof equity and reward: ensuring that they are adequately and fairly rewardedfor their efforts. Thus, if there is conflict between worker and emplover it is most likely to be over the distribution of economic gains.

Basedon yourown, directexperience of knowledgemanagement initiatives, and/oryour readingof the Iiterature on knowledgemanagement, to what extentdo you perceivethe interestsof workers and organizations to be in conflict?

However, the Scarbrough perspective, is challenged by evidence which supports the Fuller (2002) position/ that the interests of knowledge and management can be incompatible, and that workers are concernedwith more than their own or their employer's

C O N C L UO S IN narrow economic interests. Such examplesinclude: ' the art staff researchedby Beaumont and Hunter (2002)-see chapter 14, ' a significant proportion of the staff in the recently privatized UK Utility researchedbv Vince (2001)-see Chapter 10, r the scientistsexamined by Breu and Hemingway (2001)-see chapter 5, r the Finnish academicsresearchedby Hakala and ylijoko (ZOOL). common to all thesecaseswas a concern by workers regarding the conflict they perceived to exist between the commercial interests of their employers with other aims and objectives. Overall, therefore, whilst a willingness by workers to participate in organizational knowledge management initiatives is visible in innumerable cases,it still remains the case that such willingness cannot be taken for granted. Therefore, neither Fuller (2002) nor Scarbrough (2001) are correct, as while it cannot be assumed that workers are totally instrumental in their outlook, equally it is problematic to assumethat that the interests of workers and their employers will alwaysbe diametrically opposed (Button et al. 2003).

Understanding the dynamics and agents in the diffusion of knowledge on knowledge management This section begins by considering another general critique of knowledge management: that it representsthe latest in an apparently endlesssuccessionof management fads (that includes BRP-Business processRe-engineering,TeM-Total euality Management, and culture-basedmanagement) and that interest in the topic is thus likely to wane rapidly. Following this, a broader focus is taken to look at how management knowledge in gen_ eral, and knowledge on knowledge management specifically is commodified, produced, diffused, and consumed. This will allow a consideration of the type of people and organizations that are key in such processes,with a particular focus on the role of academics, businessschools, and universities in such processes.Such a focus is warranted not only becausethe role of the university sector has been relatively neglected in such processes, but also becauseits role has been changing dramatically in recent years. Knowledge management as a fashion? Scarbrough and Swan (2001) have undertaken one of the most thorough analyses to determine whether the explosive growth of interest that has occurred in knowledge management can be understood as following fashion. Much of the evidence they present suggeststhat such an analysisis accurate.For example, the explosive growth of interest in the topic that occurred in the late 1990s (see Figure 1.1) followed by the inevitable bandwagon effects,provides support for such an analysis.Further, the growth of interest in the topic also appearsto be taking the form of a normal distribution curve, which Abrahamson (1996) argues is characteristic of fashions. Another factor that makes

ORGAN I Z A TOI N A LC ON T E X T S knowledge management amenable to becoming a fashion is its ambiguity. This ambiguity meansthat, asillustratedin Figure15.1and Table15.1,the term 'knowledgemanagement'can mean quite different things to quite different people,and thus the conceptcan have a potentially broad appeal. However,a weaknessof such an analysisis that it implicitly assumesconsumersare relatively passive, even naive consumers, who are prey to the efforts of opportunistic consultants and suppliers. Scarbrough and Swan (2001) and Collins (2003) suggestthat such a conception plays down the extent to which consumersplay an active and positive role in the consumption of new management ideas.Thus for Scarbroughand Swan (2001) part of the reasonfor the growth of interest in knowledge management is that it provides potential solutions to deal with real organizational problems: how to cope with the growing impoftance of knowledge to organizational performance. Thus the general weakness of the fashion perspectiveis the light in which it portraysconsumers.

The production and consumption of management knowledge While fashion-basedanalysesareuseful for describingand understanding the exponential growth of interest in knowledge management, such analysesare relatively broad brush and generalin character.They thus have limited utility in shedding light on the particular character of the processesthrough which knowledge on knowledge management is produced and consumed, or the actors involved in such processes.Thus section fllls in some of these details by making use of the cycle of knowledge production and consumption developedby Suddabyand Greenwood 2001). This cycle is relevant to the production of all management knowledge, and was not developed specifically in relation to knowledge management. However, this framework can be utilized to better describe and understand the context within which knowledge on knowledge management is both produced and consumed. Further, as a reader of this textbook, you are a consumer of knowledge on knowledge management, and can use the cycle more fully to understand the processesthrough which such knowledge is produced, as well as the diversity of processesthrough which you have acquired such knowledge (seethe activity at the end of the chapter). For Suddabyand Greenwood(2001,933) the cyclethey developand describerepresents a 'field level analysis of the processby which management knowledge is produced'. As can be seenin Figure15.2,the production and consumption of managementknowledge of a involve the complex interaction via a number of discrete,but interrelatedprocesses diverse range of actors including consumers, business schools, individual academics, gurus, consulting companies, and large professional servicefirms. The cycle doesnot represent a simple stagemodel, with the production and consumption of knowledge occurring in neat, independent, sequentialstages.Instead, all the processestypically occur simultaneously. However, Suddaby and Greenwood suggestthe processof legitimation undertaken by gurus typically representsa starting point in the production of a new body of management knowledge. The description of the cycle presented here thus starts by examining this process.However, before doing this, the character and role of consumers, the centreof the cycle is examined.

CONCLUSION

Due diligence and innovation . primaryactors:businessschools r primaryfunction: testingand refiningextant knowledge o secondaryfunction: innovation and generationof new managerial knowledge . tertiaryfunction:socializationof consumers

Colonization o primaryactors:Big Five professional servicefirms . primaryfunction: extending commodifiedmanagerial knowledgeto new disciplines . primarymechanism:professional encroachmentthrough product diversification

Legitimation . primaryactors:'gurus' . primaryfunction: abstracting theoreticalknowledgefor applicationsand translatingit to other communities . secondaryfunction: popularizing managementknowledge

Commodification . primaryactors:largeconsulting lrrms . primaryfuntion:converting abstract knowledgeintoa salableproduct o primarymechanisms: 1. codification 2. abstraction 3. translation

Fig.15.2.suddabyand Greenwood's cycleof knowledgeproductionand consumption

Beforelookingat the cyclein detail,reflectuponyour interestin knowledgemanagement. When did it occur?What stimulatedit? Further, throughwhat mechanisms did/doyou consumeknowledgeon 'airport knowledgemanagement: newspapers, professionaljournals, books',manaqement education?

While consumersareat the centreof the cycle,their characterand role is often both poorly understood,and underconceptualized,aswasdiscussedin the fashion debateiust examined. However, Suddabyand Greenwood do little to develop such an understanding and spend little examining consumers in any detail. Further, they portray consumers in the way Scarbroughand Swan (2001)criticize them, as somewhatnaiVe @ut sceptical)consumersof management knowledge, due to the way such knowledge is legitimated by gurus and academics.However,perhapsa more usefulway of conceptualizingconsumersis that portrayed by Scarbroughand Swan,where consumers,while being influenced by fashionsin academic knowledge,are seenasactively seekingsolutions to genuine organizationalproblems. Gurus and the process of legitimation The role of Surus in the production and consumption of knowledge can be conceptualized as the first stage in the cycle, as they play a role in popularizing and making

@

@

ORGAN I Z A TOI N A LC O N T E X T S Iegitimate a new body of knowledge and subject of study. For example, Peters and Waterman played such a role with the topic of culture in the 1980s through their book (Petersand Waterman 1983),and lecture tours which did much to In Searchof Excellence popularize and legitimate the topic of organizationalculture management.Gurus thus help transfer knowledge between different communities through transforming abstract theorization, or specificorganizational practices,and making them generic. Gurus can be located both in the academicworld and in the world of private enterprise. In a survey of academicsand practitioners conducted by Edwardset al. (2003), the following writers were identifled asbeing most influential in the areaof knowledge management: 1. Nonaka 2. Nonaka and Takeuchi 3. Davenport and Prusak 4. Snowden 5. Brown and Duzuid

Didyou firstcome intocontactwith knowledgemanagement as a subjectthroughthe work of a guru?ls it one of the writersin the top f iveof the Edwardset al.survey? knowledgemanagement Are they academics or do theywork Who do you regardto be the gurusof knowledgemanagement? in the businesssector,or both?

Consultantsand the commodification of management knowledge The commodification of management knowledge involves decontextualizing knowledge, and transforming it into a genericform, so that it can be sold as a product or serviceto aretypically consultants,with the primary goal other clients.Keyagentsin suchprocesses of economic gain acting as a significant incentive for these firms to attempt such processesof codification (Morris 2001). In relation to knowledgemanagement,consultancies have played a key role in such processes(Scarbroughand Swan 2001), which perhapshelps to explain why a significant proportion of the knowledge management solutionsbeing sold aregenerictools and technologies,and why IT-basedperspectiveson knowledge management have been so popular. The colonizing practices of large professional service firms Colonization represents the attempts by organizations to expand the scope of their being large,global managerialknowledgeproducts,with the key actorsin such processes Cap Gemini Ernst & professionalservicecompanies such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers, of Young,and Deloitte & Touche.Processes of colonization arecloselyrelatedto processes legitimation, as colonization ultimately involves specific actors struggling to be seen as more legitimate sourcesof managementknowledgethan other actors.One of the main themesin Suddabyand Greenwood's(2001)analysisrelatesto the importance of the not insignificant colonizing attempts by large professional servicefirms in transforming the

CONCLUSION cycle of knowledge production/consumption. Specific examples of what could be interpreted as colonizing attempts in the area of knowledge management are KPMG's efforts at publishing a series of Knowledge Management Surveys (for example KPMG 2000) and the publication of the book Knowledge Unplugged,by consultants from McKinsey's (Kluge et al. 2OOI).This processis looked at in more detail later due to its role in changing the nature of the context in which universities and business schools operate. Due diligence, innovation, education, and the role of business schools Suddaby and Greenwood characterizebusinessschools as having three roles in the production and consumption of management knowledge. The role of businessschoolsin such processesis examined in detail here, and in the following section. Such an examination is merited, to some extent due to the lack of attention paid to the nature of work in businessschools(Willmott 1995). The primary role of businessschools is as quality controllers. Thus academic research typically follows rather than leads management practice, and plays a role in evaluating and refining management knowledge/practice (due diligence). However, this processof refinement can lead to production of new knowledge, through research-ledinnovation, which representsthe secondrole of businessschools. The third role of businessschools is the diffusion and dissemination of management knowledge via management education. The importance of this role should not be underestimated,due to the expansionin managementeducation that has occurredin recent years (Sturdy and Gabriel 2000). For example, there are so many MBA programmes in existence globally that there are websites which can help students identify the most having appropriate programme to their needs,with one site (http://r,wr.w.mbainfo.com/,)e information on over 2500 different MBA programmes taught at over 1300 separateinstitutions. Sturdy and Gabriel (2000), based on reflections on their own experiencesfrom teaching on an MBA programme in Malaysia,believe that MBA programmes can, to some extent, be characterizedas a generic (knowledge-based)commodity, not unlike a cat, and that extending the metaphor, lecturers on such programmes can be compared to car sales people. This part of the cycle links to the production and consumption of knowledge on knowledge management as specificmodules on learning and knowledge management are increasingly becoming a key part of a significant number of MScsand MBA programmes. Thus, this representsan important, though often underemphasizedmechanism through which people consume knowledge on knowledge management.

educationcourse,to what extentcanyourcoursebe lf you area studenton a management Further, to what extent,and in what to be a genericknowledgeproduct/commodity? considered (suchas this one)playa rolein the ways do textbooksandbookson knowledgemanagement legitimation, anddiffusionof knowledgeon knowledgemanagement. commodification,

e Siteaccessed 78lO9lO3.

ORGAN I Z A T I O N ACLO N T E X T S Changesin the cycle of knowledge production affecting businessschools As outlined earlier,it is worth looking in a little detail at the role of businessschoolsin the cycle of knowledgeproduction, as a number of different, external factors are impinging on them, which have implications for the rycle of knowledgeproduction and the role of businessschoolsin it. The three speciflcfactors examined here are: (1) the colonizing activities of largeprofessionalservicefirms; (2) shifts from mode 1 to mode 2 knowledgeproduction, and (3) the pernicious effectsof neoliberal/monetarist policies on the funding of universities.Thesepressureshave a common effect on businessschools,increasingthe demandson them to commercializetheir work, and develop closer links with businessorganizations (Fuller 2002, 5; R;meset al. 2001; Stevensand Bagby2001). The extent of thesepressuresis visible in the development of terms such as 'academic capitalism' (Slaughterand Leslie 1997), and in his presidential addressto the Academy of Management Michael Hitt (1997) talked about the demandson businessschoolsto becomemore entreDreneurial. The colonizing activities of professional service firms One key change in the cycle of knowledge production/consumption is that the largest, global professional service firms are attempting to extend their influence beyond their traditional boundaries (Suddabyand Greenwood 2001). Speciflcally,they seem to be attempting to developa role in the creation as well as commodification and dissemination of knowledge and are thus turning their colonizing efforts to the internalization of traditional university functions (Huff 1999). Further, consultants are emerging as key competitorswith universitiesin the production of research(Ryneset al. 2001). Shifts from Mode 1- to Mode 2-based knowledge production Gibbons et al. (1994),in a highly influential book, arguethat fundamental changesin the nature of knowledgeproduction processesoccurredin the secondhalf of the twentieth century. Fundamentally, they suggestthat there has been a shift from what they label, inelegantly, a mode l-based system,where knowledge production is discipline-based,university centred, individualistic, largely cognitive and basedon a processof peer review, to a mode 2-basedsystem,where knowledge production is, by contrast, transdisciplinary,team-rather than individual-based,and where knowledge is produced and validated through use rather than through abstractreflection. Thus, a mode 2-basedsystemof knowledge production is highly problem oriented, and requires close collaboration with industrial/businesspartners. A number of writers suggestthat there are pressureson businessschoolsto undertake such a transition, and develop managementknowledge through linking with relevant businesspartners (Hakala and Ylijoki 2001; Huff 1999). Thus this representsanother external pressure,pushing businessschoolsand private industry together. Neo-liberal government policies and the funding of universities The third and flnal factor acting to push business schools and private industry into a closer relationship has been a change in the way that governments fund universities. In general terms governments globally have moved towards the adoption of neo-liberal, monetarist policies. Such moves involve government attempts to tightly control, if not minimize/reduce, state expenditure. In relation to universities generally and business schoolsspecifically,central government funding has been cappedand increasingly tied to

CONCLUSION perrormance_based m

versitiestoseekhish:e,ar'::e?#ll,;:::::::ffiT.r,lrlff ii:;Jj;Tilf :fJ;ill: 2001; Wilmott

2001; Ryneset al. 2001;Trowler

t99S).

Conclusion This chapter has therefore examined three

I knowredge manasement, questioning o*, n,"{"lx;'::TJ#1,ff:fril:"t}:,t:#:,:i sions

reachedwere asfollows. Firstly,while the analytical and theoretical rigour of some of the knowledge management literature is weak, there is a growing body of work in the area that is theoretically robust. secondly, on the question of whether knowledge management is actuarly viable, the answer was a quarified yes. while the ability of organizations to directly manage and control knowledje was questioned,it was acknowledged that knowredgecan be managedmore indirectly by persuadingworkers to shareand use their knowl_

fftr"JL:fi'fTlJ:t''

rhirdlv,existing evidence doessuggest that knowledge

rashionornot,,*,oJKlljlTililillij"'Tl'll;ff ffi :,:i,:H:JH:::jl* are that, firstly, it has raised awareness about

the importance of knowredge in organiza_ tions and, secondly, the best of the work on the subject has contributed genera'y to an improved understanding of what knowledge and knowledge processes in organizations are like, aswell asrevealingthe importance of iuman/social/cultural factorsin such processes. The second object of the paper was to understand the broad context within which knowledge on knowled

andconsumed' whichshowed the range oractors andrn.r:%illililTr:Tr:t :r'r".luced

Name the players in the knowledge management production/consumption ,game, Rather than provide a list of discrete questions,the book closeswith an invitation to play the 'game' of naming the players unJ th"i, .oles in the production and consumption of knowledge on knowredge management? To do this, 100k in detaii as Suddaby and Greenwood,scycle, and fill in the blanks. Questions which may help you do this include: o Where (if anywhere) is the start of the cycle? . Who (if anyone) are the gurus of knowledge management? - Are they consultants? Academics?Both? - Through what mechanisms have their arguments been diffused (books, lectures, teaching, consultancy, . . .) r can you f in more deta's for the unexplored category consumers? - Are consumerspassive victims of passingfads? - Can you develop subcategoriesof different types of consumer?

ORGAN I Z A T I O N ACTO N T E X T S - Are there organizationswhich represent collections of consumerswhich have been impoftant in the knowledgemanagementcycle?(tradeassociations, professionalbodies?) o what about the role of academia,businessschools, and individual academics? - Is their role primarily the testing/refinement and legitimation of existingknowledge? - Are there particular universities,academics, or departments(businessschools,IS/IT departments)that have played a particularly key role? - What role do university departmentsplay in the diffusion of knowledgeon knowledge management?Is this through providing education, the pubrication of books (suchas this one)? - Is there evidencethat academiais under pressureto commercializeits activitiesand outputs? - Is there evidenceof (growing)linkages betweenacademiaand businessorganizations? r What role have largeprofessionalservicefirms played in the production and consumption of knowledgeon knowledgemanagement? - Do particular organizationshave a more important role than others? - Is there evidenceof colonizing activity? r Are there any missingactorsfrom the cycle? - What about the role of the massmedia? National newspapers,television?Has it had any role in the diffusion of knowledgeon knowledgemanagement? - Is this cycle useful in understanding the processesand agents involved in the production and consumption of knowredgeon knowredgemanagement? F U R T H ERRE A D I N G M. Alvessonand D. Karreman (2001).,OddCouple:MakingSenseof the Curious Conceotof KnowledgeManagement', Journalof ManagementStudies, 3Bl7:99b_1O1B. Providesa criticalrevtew of the early knowledge managementtfterature, as well as developinoa typologyof knowledgemanagementstrategies. R S u d d a b y a n d RG r e e n w o o d ( 2 0 0 1 ) . ' C o l o n i z i n g K n o w C l eodm ge m: o d i f i c a t i o n a s a D y n a m i c o f Jurisdictional Expansion in Professional ServiceFirms,,Human Relations, E4lT:933_b3. Developa generic model for understandingthe dynamicsof the production and consumption of managementknowledge. A S t u r d y a n d Y G a b r(i 2e 0l 0 0 ) . ' M i s s i o n a r i e s , M e r c e n a r i e s o r c a r S a r e s m e n ? M B A T e a c h i n o i n Malaysia', Journalof ManagementStudies, 3l 17:g7g_1O02. lnteresting personalreflections on the importance of MBA teachingfor the diffusion of knowledge, and whethersuch teachingcan be understoodin commoartyterms. G Von Krogh,K. lchijo,and L Nonaka(2000).EnabtingKnowledgeCreation: Howto untockthe Mystery of TacitKnowtedgeand Releasethe Powerof Innovation.Oxford: OxfordUniversitypress ( e s p e c i a lCl yh . i ) . Argues that knowledgeis not somethingthat can be directlymanaged, but thatit canbe manaqed more indirectly,via people management.