SHARING KNOWLEDGE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL, GROUP AND ORGANISATION

David P Mankin

OxfordBrookesUniversityBusinessSchool

Abstract

If the academic community is not to alienate itself further from the ‘world’ of HRD practitioners there needs to be less emphasis on what are often little more than esoteric debates and more commitment to research into how and why knowledge is shared. This paper places this discussion within the context of a research project that is investigating the relationship between individual, group and organisation in the sharing of knowledge and which incorporates the role of communities-of-practices and informal processes. Relevant literature is discussed along with some emerging themes from the first phase of data collection. Implications for HRD are also considered and the question is posed: can, or should knowledge be managed?

Key Words: Communities-of-practice; knowledge sharing; informal groups

Introduction

Much has been written about the importance of knowledge as a source of competitive advantage with recent CIPD research reports providing summaries of relevant literature and research ( e.g. Scarborough et al, 1999; Scarborough & Carter, 2000 ); as well as considering HRD implications ( e.g. Stewart & Tansley, 2002 ). The topicality of knowledge management is reflected in the number of current management texts that make reference to it ( e.g. Handy, 2002 ). However, until recently the debate has been dominated by ICT contributions with the notion of knowledge management being “in danger of being hijacked by the IT community and turned into a vehicle for the marketing of new IT systems” ( Scarborough et al, 1999: 2 ). Although sharing knowledge, either face-to-face or via a computer system, is an important theme in the literature some authors describe this process as knowledge transfer and/or conversion; the latter being popularised particularly by Nonaka & Takeuchi ( e.g. 1995 ). There is also an emphasis on formal processes for knowledge sharing at the expense of informal processes ( Oliver & Roos, 2000; Brown & Duguid, 2002; Duke, 2002 ). The emergence of the concept of communities-of-practice ( Lave & Wenger, 1991; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 1998; Brown & Duguid, 1998; Wenger, 2000 ) provides an opportunity to explore the role that informal processes play in facilitating knowledge sharing in organisations while at the same time questioning the notion that knowledge can, or should be, managed.

However, group processes should not be the sole focus of any research as it is argued that it is the relationship between individual, group and organisational knowledge that is a central focus for knowledge management (Quintas, 2002 ). As with organisational learning and the learning organisation, there has been limited investigation into the nature of the relationship between these. Consequently, there is a need for more empirical studies in order to counter the same criticisms that have been levelled at organisational learning and the learning organisation ( e.g. Starkey, 1996; Probst & Büchel, 1997; Bertels & Savage, 1998; Easterby-Smith et al, 1999; Fenwick, 2001 ).

The aim of this paper is to describe and report on the first phase of an ongoing research project that is investigating the relationship between individual, group and organisation in sharing knowledge. ‘Group’ is further differentiated between ‘formal groups’ ( e.g. departments; working parties; project teams etc ) and ‘communities-of-practice’. The research project is attempting to answer the following questions:

  • What do individuals claim constitutes knowledge?
  • What account do individuals give of how knowledge is shared or exchanged within organisations?
  • What do individuals claim are the similarities and differences between self-knowledge and shared-knowledge?
  • What accounts do individuals give of choosing to share knowledge or not?
  • What barriers and facilitators do individuals claim exist in the sharing or exchange of knowledge in organisations?

In order to address these questions it is necessary to identify the landscape ( i.e. pattern of relationships ) of each participant .

This paper will focus primarily on a critique of relevant literature linked to an explanation of an emergent conceptual framework. It will provide an overview of the methodology and offer some insights emerging from the initial data collection phase. However, it is intended to offer tentative observations only at this time as data collection is still ongoing. A fuller analysis of the data will form the subject of future papers. The paper will also consider potential implications for HRD.

Critique of literature and the emergent conceptual framework

In recent years knowledge has been viewed increasingly as a principal source of competitive advantage for organisations ( e.g. Drucker, 1988; Nonaka, 1991; Boud & Garrick, 1999; Burton-Jones, 1999; Huseman & Goodman, 1999; Handy, 2002 ). However, much of the work on organisational knowledge has been predicated on a positivist perspective ( Spender, 1996 ) by which knowledge is viewed as an object or entity which exists separately from people and can be stored on paper or computer databases. Fortunately, the debate has started to broaden out from the rather narrow, technological focus, often referred to as the codification of knowledge, with its rather simplistic, and spurious, emphasis on the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge ( and vice versa ) which, to date, hasprovided the basis of much practitioner-based activity. As Cook and Brown ( 2002: 73 ) argue “explicit and tacit are two distinct forms of knowledge ( i.e. neither is a variant of the other ); that each does work the other cannot; and that one form cannot be made out of or changed into the other”. A perspective shared by Wenger ( 1998: 69 ) who observes that the tacit and explicit aspects of knowledge “are always present to some degree”. While Stacey ( 2001: 222 ) emphasises that tacit and explicit are facets of the same communicative process and that:

“Communicative interaction is human relationship and that is a living process, which cannot be captured, stored or owned by anyone…the prescriptions to do with converting tacit into explicit knowledge, capturing and storing it, all reveal a particular ideology to do with control.”

However, in terms of the debate on managing knowledge within contemporary organisations these perspectives have been overshadowed in the past by the prevalence of ICT perspectives. Whilst the notion of codification may be attractive to senior managers seeking a ‘fast-track’ solution to the management of knowledge as a competitive ( strategic ) tool, recent organisational history/literature is replete with numerous examples of potentially useful concepts being undermined by the overzealous demands of CEOs who feed off the hype and rhetoric that is seemingly easier to grasp than the harsh and apparently elusive realities of effective organisational change. Of course, an (in)ability or (un)willingness to understand the issues involved may be as lacking as the apparent (in)ability or (un)willingness to understand how organisations really work.

Definitions of knowledge abound in the literature, with each author ( apparently ) attempting to add something original to the debate. Whether it is about describing knowledge as a veil ( Sternberg, 1994 ) or as an output of cognitive processes ( Burton-Jones, 1999 ) or emphasising its fluidity ( Ruggles, 1997; Davenport & Prusak, 2000 ) or its transience ( Blackler et al, 1998 ), or differentiating between philosophical perspectives, there is little doubt that the literature to date has highlighted the extent to which knowledge can be described as a multi-faceted concept ( Blackler et al, 1998 ). Although this may accurately reflect the complexities, subtleties and ambiguities of this topic ( concept ) it also highlights a potential dilemma for the academic community – is it alienating itself from the world of the practitioner through this diverse and perhaps overly protracted debate on the meaning and utilisation of knowledge? Indeed, it has been argued that some researchers have gone as far as suggesting that because knowledge is such a tricky concept formal definitions of knowledge are unnecessary since they end up complicating the debate further ( Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001 ). Certainly, there is a pressing need to (a) engage in the collection of empirical data to validate the plethora of prevailing hypotheses, theories, models and perspectives, and (b) engage more practitioners, such as HRD professionals, in this research so that the academic community can be seen to be working in partnership to assist, rather than frustrate the private and public sector organisations that comprise the lifeblood of so much academic work ( in terms of teaching, learning and research ).

The importance of informal processes; and the implications of organisations as self-organising systems ( Stacey, 2001 ) require much more discussion and exploration than has been witnessed to date; and should not be so readily criticised and dismissed ( e.g. Brown & Duguid, 1998 ). Complexity and Chaos theory may yet prove to be the most significant step in recent years towards an improved understanding of how organisations actually work. It has been applied already to an education setting ( e.g. Waddock, 1999 ). Stacey’s ( 2001 ) concept of complex responsive processes in organisations draws on complexity theory. He argues that collective memory/knowledge is contained within the pattern of relationships within an organisation. This resonates with the view that knowledge is distributed throughout the whole of an organisation ( e.g. Nixon, 1999 ) although it does not resolve the ‘codification-personalisation’ debate. However, the role of the individual and the groups, both formal and informal, within which individuals operate, and build and maintain social relations, is moved to a much more central, and arguably pivotal, place in the whole knowledge management debate. This should be welcomed by HRD practitioners who are still struggling to demonstrate that learning and development processes and practices can, and do contribute to organisational success.

Unfortunately, more ‘rational’ perspectives on what organisations are and how they function are well established. Although as Scott ( 1987: 24 ) observes, “it is essential to remember that definitions [ of an organisation ] are neither true nor false but are only more or less helpful in calling attention to certain aspects of the phenomenon under investigation.” Despite the emergence of some new organisational forms, such as ‘networks’ or ‘webs of participation’ ( Oliver & Roos, 2000 ), many organisations are still deeply rooted in some ‘modern’ variant of Weber’s bureaucracy and riddled with management practices that owe more to Taylor’s notion of scientific management than to the human relations movement or any of its antecedents. The reality is that “organisations are made up of a confusing and strictly speaking incomprehensible muddle of people moved by an infinite number of known and recognised motives” ( Duke, 2002: 36 ). Consequently, more consideration needs to be given to the impact of informal processes and activities within organisational settings. This may be termed informalisation. It is not the intention of this paper to present a case for the impact of ‘informalisation’ on all aspects of organisational life but to focus on its relevance to sharing, and exchanging knowledge. The view that informal processes, such as knowledge sharing within and between communities-of-practice, can be managed formally ( e.g. Hanley, 1998; McDermott, 1999 ), including the utilisation of incentives and reward mechanisms ( e.g. Stevens, 2000 ), indicates a lack of real understanding of how and why these informal processes occur, reflecting both the lack of empirical research to date and the increasingly over-popularisation of certain knowledge management concepts. Indeed, the very over-hyping of the belief that all organisational knowledge can in fact be managed. There is a need to view informal and formal processes as necessary, complementary and parallel processes in the same way that tacit and explicit knowledge should be viewed; although this does run counter to the notion that informal processes can be managed or transformed in the same way that explicit and tacit knowledge can be converted into each other.

The conceptual framework illustrated in figure 1 is the product of the ongoing research project that is concerned with the relationship between individual, group and organisation in the sharing of knowledge. It is based on several propositions which may be summarised as:

  • There is a relationship between individual, group and organisation ( although that between the individual and the organisation may be abstract or focus specifically on the actions and behaviour of the senior management team )
  • There are differences between communities-of-practice ( informal ) and formal groups
  • The activities of communities-of practice and formal groups are interrelated by the outcomes of particular activities, shared practice, or experience gained by individuals
  • There is a difference between individuals choosing to share knowledge and exchanging knowledge
  • Exchange and sharing imply different notions of reciprocity ( with trust, identity and belonging playing a pivotal role )
  • The categories of individual, communities-of-practice, formal groups and organisation resonate with the notion of human, social and organisational capital.

The framework reflects the existing argument that the relationship between individual, group and organisational knowledge is “a central focus for knowledge management” ( Quintas, 2002 ). Pivotal to the framework is the differentiation between formal and informal groups ( reflecting the importance of informalisation ). Such a differentiation is not new as evidenced in the work of authors prior to the early 1990s ( e.g. Schein, 1980; Blackler & Shimmin, 1984; Scott, 1987; Hucynski & Buchanan, 1991 ). However, The role of informal processes has not received as much coverage in the academic literature as that of formal processes. “The importance of communities of practice is sometimes underestimated in organisations, yet they play a critical role in linking individual knowledge with that of the organisation as a whole” ( Oliver & Roos, 2000: 49 ). As Duke ( 2002: 40 ) observes: “people behave in their own different and often purposeful ways ‘informally’ within the formal planned structure of the organisation”. As Hucynski and Buchanan pointed out over a decade ago informal groups “emerge in an organisation and are neither anticipated, nor intended, by those who create the formal organisation” ( 1991: 168 ). While Blackler and Shimmin ( 1984: 47 ) had previously argued that informal groups “arise spontaneously out of shared interests…”. As such groups lie outside the formal structure of the organisation, “to identify different informal groups, one does not look at the work flow or the organisation chart, but needs to note who interacts with whom, and what friendship relations exist between individuals” ( Huczynski & Buchanan, 1991: 171 ). This resonates with the more recent literature on ‘communities of practice’

Today technology is demanding a degree of formality that creates tensions with informal processes. Increasingly, organisations are trying to control interaction via intranets and e-mail systems. “Yet these systems in many ways replace the coffee pot and the water cooler as the site of informal but highly important knowledge diffusion. Limiting their informality is likely to limit their importance” ( Brown & Duguid, 2002: 34 ). Or as Duke ( 2002: 43 ) observes: “trying to manage knowledge through these new media and means of its manipulation, we risk losing sight of what we know about human behaviour in organisations, factoring out initiative, ingenuity and individualism in an new form of Fordism”. In this sense the use of technology can be said to go hand-in-hand with management’s desire to control all aspects of organisational life.

The relationship between individuals and groups has also been much discussed in the past ( e.g. Simmel, 1955; Lazarsfeld & Menzel, 1961; Ellis & Dick, 2003 ) as has, more recently, the relationship between the individual and the organisation in terms of the psychological contract. However, there has been limited empirical research into these relationships in relation to knowledge sharing processes although the relationships have been much discussed at a theoretical level. Within the framework shown at figure 1 the importance of trust, identity and belonging are highlighted, as well as politics and power. The importance of trust has been identified in relation to the processes of knowledge transfer ( e.g. Huemer et al, 1998; Levin et al, 2002 ) and knowledge exchange ( e.g. Davenport & Prusak, 2000 ). The importance of trust in social relationships has been highlighted in the academic literature of the last twenty years ( e.g. Eisenstadt & Roniger, 1984; Good, 1988; Seligman, 1997; Sztompka, 1999 ); and social relations have been identified as critical to effective knowledge transfer ( e.g. Hansen, 1999 ). The concept of communities-of-practice is predicated on the notion of learning through social participation. Consequently, trust is believed to play a critical role in knowledge sharing processes within and between individuals, communities, formal groups and the organisation. Huemer et al ( 1998 ) emphasise the relationship between knowledge and trust arguing that the two concepts are intertwined and both cannot exist without the other. Trust is no longer seen as a personal attitude but as a “trait of interpersonal relations” ( Sztompka, 1999: 14 ). Trust transcends the individual and is a feature of social interaction although, “the motivations of those we interact with can be inferred but never known directly” ( Kollock, 1994: 317 ). It is intended to explore with individual participants in the research project the role of trust and the relationship between trust, identity and belonging.

Until recently power has not been emphasised within organisational learning literature ( Easterby-Smith et al, 1998 ). Interestingly, the extensive literature on power does not provide a model tracing the linkages between the individual and group levels and describing how power develops and is transferred between individuals and groups ( Fiol, et al, 2001 ). However, power has been associated with particular perspectives for understanding organisations; for instance, Nohria ( 1992 ) argues that a network perspective sheds light on the distribution of power within an organisation. It has been argued that you need to study the different communities of practice within an organisation and the distribution of power within these in order to better understand the way information is constructed and travels within an organisation ( Brown & Duguid, 1991 ). Particular studies on power are potentially informative; for instance, Blackler and McDonald’s ( 2000 ) exploration of the links between power, expertise and organisational learning; and, Fiol et al’s ( 2001 ) exploration of how power at the group level can influence the power of individuals in the group. In terms of the relationship between power and knowledge, the latter has been described as a resource ( Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001 ); and the concepts of power and knowledge have been argued as being inextricably linked ( Foucalt, 1977; Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001 ).

It has been argued that the relationship between communities of practice and organisations presents a parallel to that between individuals and communities of practice. Yet there are important differences in the way knowledge moves in each relationship ( Brown & Duguid, 2002 ). Local knowledge ( i.e. that which is developed within a community ) is ‘sticky’ and therefore difficult to develop for broader use – such knowledge “doesn’t readily turn into something with exchange value or use value elsewhere” ( Brown & Duguid, 2002: 28 ). The research project will explore whether participants perceive a difference between sharing and exchanging, and if a difference is identified whether exchange is a characteristic of participation in formal groups only. The research parallel’s Brown and Duguid’s ( 2002 ) and Oliver and Roos’ ( 2000 ) observations on the emergent nature of knowledge within organisational settings. Indeed as Oliver and Roos comment: “new ideas and knowledge emerge through collaborative interactions among individuals and communities. These interactions are notoriously difficult to track and measure, and defy much traditional management theory, which tends to assume that the process of moving from individual to community to organisation follows logical, rational and understandable practices” ( 2000: 53 ). The project will be investigating the extent to which such informalisation is a characteristic of the groups being studied.