1.Knowledge Sharing in Organizations a Conceptual Framework

Human Resource Development Review http://hrd.sagepub.com

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework Minu Ipe Human Resource Development Review 2003; 2; 337 DOI: 10.1177/1534484303257985 The online version of this article can be found at: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/4/337

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

Additional services and information for Human Resource Development Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 42 articles hosted on the SAGE SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): platforms): http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/2/4/337

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. Publications. All rights reserved. reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized unauthorized distribution. distribution.

Theory and Conceptual Article 10.1177/1534484303257985 Human ResourceDevelopmentReview /December2003 Ipe/KNOWLEDGESHARING

ARTICLE

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Knowledge A Conceptual Framework MINU IPE University of Minnesota

Knowledge is now being seen as the most impo rtant strategic resource in organizations, and the management of this knowledge is consid ered critical to organizational success. If organizations have to capitalize on the knowledgee they possess, they have to understand how knowledge is creknowledg ated, shared, and used within the organization. Knowledge exists and is shared at different levels in organizations. This article examines knowledge sharing at the most basic level; namely, between individua ls in organizations. Bas ed on a review review of existing literature in this area, this article pres ent s a mo model del tha t i den tif ies fac tor s t hat mo most st sig nif nifica ica ntl y inf lue nce knowledge sharing at this level.

Keyw ord s: knowledge; knowledge sharing; knowledge transfer; knowledge sharing between individuals

In recent years, the concept of knowledge in organizations has become increasingly popular in the literature (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001), with knowledge being recognized as the most important resource of organizations (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Spender & Grant, 1996). Although knowle kno wledge dge hasalwa hasalways ys bee been n an imp import ortantfacto antfactorr in or organ ganiza izati tions ons,, onl only y in the last decade has it been considered the primary source of competitive advantage (Stewart, 1997) and critical to the long-term sustainab ility and success of org organiza anization tionss (Nona (Nonaka ka & Takeu akeuchi, chi, 1995) 1995).. The recog recogniti nition on of know knowledg ledgee as the key resource of today’s organizations affirms the need for processes that facilitate the creation, sharin g, and leveraging of individual and collective knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Drucker, 1993). More and more organizations are attempting to set up knowledge management systems and practices to more effectively use the knowledge they have, and numerous publications have discussed the importance of knowledge in organizations. Even so, there is much to be learned and understood about how knowledge is created, shared, and used in organizations (Grover & Davenport, 2001; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001).

Human Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. 4 December 2003 337-359 DOI: 10.1177/1534484303257985 © 2003 Sage Publications

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. Publications. All rights reserved. reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized unauthorized distribution. distribution.

338

Human Resource Development Review / December 2003

Thepurpose of this article is to contributeto a better understanding of the phenomenon of knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations. Drawing on literature from several fields of study, a model of knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations is developed. Although knowledge exists at many levels in organizations, the focu s of this article is the knowledge that exists with and within individuals and the factors that influence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals. The field of knowledge managementhas traditionally been dominatedby information technology and technology-driven perspectives (Davenport, De Long, & Beers, 1998; Gourlay, 2001). However, there is increasing recognition of the role of individuals in knowledge managemen t processes and a growing interest in the “people perspective” of knowledge in organizations (Earl, 2001; Stenmark, 2001). The key to successfully managing knowledgeis now being seen as dependenton theconnectionsbetween individuals within the organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991; McDermott, 1999). Increasing empirical evidence also points to the importance of people and people-related factors as critical to knowledge processes within organizations (e.g., Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Quinn, Anderson, & Finkelstein, 1996). At the heart of the people perspective of knowledge management is the notion that individuals in organizations have knowledge (Spender & Grant, 1996) that must move to the level of groups and the organiza tion as a whole so that it can be used to advance the goals of the organization (Nonaka, 1994). There is growing realization that knowledge sharing is critical to knowledgecreation, organizational learning, and performance achievement (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Individuals in organizations have always created and shared knowledge and therefore knowledge sharing was considered to be a natural function of workplaces, an activity that took place automatically (Chakravarthy, Zaheer, & Zaheer, 1999). Yet it is now being acknowledged that even under the best of circumstances, knowledge sharing within organizations is a multifaceted, complex process (Hendriks, 1999; Lessard & Zaheer, 1996).

Method A varietyof fields have reported on theconcept of knowledgeand knowledge sharing in organizations. The conceptual framework presented in this article has drawn on literature from fields such as manageme nt theory, strategic management, information and decision sciences, organizational communication, and organizational behavior. These fields of study were identified through a search of scholarly literature available primarily through electronic databases. The initial review of literature began with an examination of publications that discussed the concept of knowledge and how this

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008 © 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Ipe / KNOWLEDGE SHARING

339

knowledge existed within organizations. The review process was then narrowed down to publications that referred specifically to the movement of knowledge within organizations. Some of the key concepts considered during the review included knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, individual and organizational learning, and information distribution and dissemination. The initial broad review of relevant literature was followed by the process of analysis and synthesis. Analy sis of literature began with identifying publications that were relevant to this article, those that addressed issues related to individual knowledge in organizations and how individuals shared their knowledge with others within their work settings. Once relevant publications were identified, the focus of the analysis shifted to isolating those ideas that specifically related to knowledge sharing between individuals. Specific attention was given to identifying common themes among the various sources during this process. The key factors related to knowledge sharing that emerged from the literature were then synthesized to form the conceptual framework presented in this article. The process of synthesis focused on capturing the dominant ideas related to knowledge sharing as it exists at this point in time. The review of literature revealed important ideas generated by several fields of study pertaining to knowledgeand knowledge sharing in organizations. The conceptual framework presented in this article is an attempt to bring together all these ideas into one whole to provide a more comprehensive approach to understanding the phenomenon of knowledge sharing within organizations. The framework also proposes relationships between the different factors identified from the literature. Some of these relationships are apparent in theliterature, whereas othersare being proposed in this article to further explore the interaction between the primary factors that influence knowledge sharing in organizational settings. These relationships are discussed in detail later in the article.

Knowledge in Organizations Although there is much written about why managing knowledge is important to organizations, there is considerably less on the how —the processes that are used to identify, capture, share, and use knowledge within organizations. Knowledge in organizational settings tends to be fuzzy in nature and closely attached to the individuals who hold it (Davenport et al., 1998), challenging efforts to define, measure, and manage it. Knowledge can also be subject to multiple classifications and can have several meanings. A comprehensive review of the various classifications of knowledge is beyond the scope of this article. Some useful categorizations may be found in Blackler (1995) and Venzin, von Krogh, and Roos (1998).


340


The terms information and knowledge are often used interchangeably in the literature. Some authors distinguished between the two terms (e.g., Blackler, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Pemberton, 1998), whereas others used both terms synonymously (e.g., Kogut & Zander, 1992; Stewart, 1997). This article recognizes the distinction between information and knowledge. Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insights that providesa framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates in and is applied in the minds of knowers” (p. 5). Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) definition of knowledge is far broader in scope and is stated as “a dynamic human process of justifying personal belief toward the truth” (p. 58). According to these authors, information is the “flow of messages” (p. 58), and knowledge is created when this flow of messages interacts with the beliefs and commitments of its holders. They identified three characteristics that distinguished information from knowledge. First, knowledge is a function of a particular perspective, intention, or stance taken by individuals, and therefore, unlike information, it is about beliefs and commitment. Second, knowledge is always about some end, which means that knowledgeis about action. Third,it is context specific and relational and therefore it is about meaning.

Individual Knowledge in Organizations Knowledge exists at multiple levels within organizations. De Long and Fahey (2000) divided it into individual, group, and organizational levels. Roos and von Krogh (1992) added the levels of departments and divisions. This article focuse s on the most basic of these levels, the knowledge that is possessed by individuals. Although individuals constitute only one level at which knowledge resides within organizations, the sharing of individual knowledge is imperative to the creation, disseminatio n, and management of knowledge at all the other levels within an organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), in their definitive work The Knowledge Creating Company, were among the first to recognize the importance of individual employees in the knowledge creation process. According to them, knowledge creation should be viewed as a process whereby knowledge held by individuals is amplified and internalized as part of an organization’s knowledge base. Thus, knowledge is created through interaction between individuals at various levels in the organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi argued that organizations cannot create knowledge without individuals, and unless individual knowledge is shared with other individuals and groups, the knowledgeis likely to have limited impact on organizational effectiveness.



341

Lam (2000) defined individual knowledge as “that part of an organization’s knowledge which resides in thebrains andbodily skills of theindividual” (p. 491). It involves all the knowledge possessed by the individual that can be applied independently to specific types of tasks and problems. Because individuals have cognitive limits in terms of storing and processing information, individual knowledge tends to be specialized and domainspecific in nature (Lam, 2000). Literature from the area of organizational learning also contributes to the notion that knowledge in organizations resides within individuals. Simon (1991) emphasized the role of individuals in the knowledge process by stating that “all organizational learning takes place inside human heads” (p. 176). Argyris (1990) reinforced this point of view by suggesting that organizations learn through individuals and this individual learning is facilitated or inhibited by factors within the organizational learning system. Huber (1991) further argued that knowledge could only reside at the individual level because cognition is a function of individuals that cannot be performed by organizations. At the individual level, Lowendahl, Revang, and Fosstenlokken (2001) identified three types of knowledge that are important to value creation in organizations—know-how, know-what, and dispositional knowledge. Know-how included experienced-based knowledge that is subjective and tacit, and know-what included task-related knowledge that is objective in nature. Dispositional knowledge was defined as personal knowledge that included talents, aptitude, and abilities. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) further emphasized the role of individuals in the creation and sharing of knowledge, while Polanyi (1966) insisted that all knowledge is essentially personal in nature. Others who suggested that knowledge in organizations is found at thelevel of individualsincludeAlvesson (1995), Brown andWoodland (1999), Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), Nonaka (1994), Staples and Jarvenpaa (2001), and Weiss (1999).

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations An organization’s ability to effectively leverage its knowledge is highly dependen t on its people, who actually crea te, share, and use the knowledge. Leveraging knowledge is only possible when people can share the knowledge they have and build on the knowledge of others . Knowledge sharing is basically the act of making knowledge available to others within the organization. Knowledge sharing between individuals is the process by which knowledge held by an individua l is converted into a form that can be understood, absorbed, and used by other individuals. The use of the term sharing implies that this process of presenting individual knowledge in form that can be used by others involves some conscious action on the part of the individual who possesses the knowledge. Sharing also implies that the sender


342


does not relinquish ownership of the knowledge; instead, it results in joint ownership of the knowledge between the sender and the recipient. Davenport (1997) defined sharing as a voluntary act and distinguished it from reporting. Reporting involves the exchange of information based on some routines or structured formats. Sharing, on the other hand, implies a conscious act by an individual who participates in the knowledge exchange even thoughthereis no compulsion to do so. Hendriks (1999)suggested that knowledge sharing implies a relationship betwe en at least two parties—one that possesses the knowledge and the other that acquires the knowledge. This article makes a distinction between knowledge sharing between individuals and the concept of knowledge transfer used predominantly to describe the movement of knowledge between larger entities within organizations, such as between departments or divisions and between organizations themselves (e.g., Chakravarthy et al., 1999; Lam, 1997). Knowledge sharing is important because it provides a link between the individual and the organization by moving knowledgethat resides withindividuals to the organizational level, where it is converted into economic and competitive value for the organization (Hendriks, 1999). Cohen and Levinthal (1990) proposed that interactions between individuals who possess diverse and different knowledge enhance the organization’s ability to innovate far beyond what any one individual can achieve. Boland and Tenkasi (1995) concurred with this idea and contended that competitive advantage and product success in organizations results from individuals with diverse knowledge collaborating synergistically toward common outcomes. Accord ing to these authors, the creation of an organization’s knowledge base requires “a process of mutual perspective taking wheredistinctive individual knowledge is exchanged, evaluated, and integrated with that of others in the organization” (p. 358). Knowledge sharing also leads to the dissemination of innovative ideas and is considered critical to creativity and subsequentinnovationin organizations (Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, & Farris, 2001). However, in practice, the lack of knowledge sharing has proved to be a major barrier to the effective management of knowledge in organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999). Knowledge sharing between individuals is a process that contributes to both individual and organizational learning (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Nidumolu, Subramani, & Aldrich, 2001). Organizational knowledge is recognized as a key component of organizational learning (Dodgson, 1993; Huber, 1991). Huber (1991) further identified four knowledgeconcepts that contribute to organizational learning—knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. The concept of knowledge sharing as it is presented in this article is linked to both knowledge distribution and knowledge acquisition. The voluntary act of sharing knowledge by an individual contributes to knowledge distribu-



343

tion, and the process of sharing may result in knowledge acquisition by otherindividuals within the organization. Knowledge sharing between individuals thus results in individual learning, which in turn may contribute to organizational learning. Knowledge management calls for managing organizational knowledge as a corporate asset and harnessing knowledge creation and sharing as key organization al capabilities (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). A possible concern in this approach to managing knowledge is that much of organizational knowledge is controlled at the level of individuals (Staples & Jarvenpaa, 2001). Individuals use the knowledge they have in their daily activities at work (Lam, 2000), and unless the organization can facilitate the sharing of this knowledge with othe rs, it is likely to lose this knowledge when individual employees leave (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Even if individuals stay with the organization, the full extent of their knowledge may not be realized and utilized unless there are opportunities for the individual to share that knowledge with others in the organization (Weiss, 1999). Understanding the process of knowledge sharing between individuals is one step toward a better understanding of knowledge sharing as a whole in organizations. The following section elaborates on the factors identified from literature that influence knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations.

Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing There is a paucity of research specifical ly in the area of knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations, and empirical evidence has just begun to uncover some of the complex dynamics that exist in processes related to knowledge sharing. Based on a review of theory and research related to knowledge sharing, the following have been identified as the major factors that influence knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations: the nature of knowledge, motivation to share, opportunities to share, and the culture of the work environment.

Nature of Knowledge Knowledgeby its very natureexists in both tacitand explicit forms.However, with the increasing recognition of the importance of knowledge in organizations, different types of knowledge have also begun to be valued differently within organizations. These two characteristics of the nature of knowledge, tacitness and explicitness of knowledge, and the value attributed to knowledge have a significant influence on the way knowledge is shared within organizations.


344


Tacit and explicit knowledge. The dominant classification of knowledge in organizations divides it into two types, tacit and explicit. The critical differences between these two types are found in three major areas—codifiability and mechanisms for transfer, methods for acquisition and accumulation, and the potential to be collected and distributed (Lam, 2000). The concept of tacit knowledge was first presented by Polanyi (1966), who argued that a large part of human knowledge cannot be articulated and made explicit easily. Tacit knowledge can be thoughtof as theknow-how that is acquired throughpersonal experience (Nonaka, 1994). It is therefore not easily codifiable and cannot be communicated or used without the individual who is the knower. Tacit knowledge also tends to be sticky in nature. von Hippel (1994) defined stickiness as the incremental expenditure involved in moving knowledge in a form that is useable and easily understood by the information seeker. According to von Hippel, stickiness for the knowledge supplier comes from the tacitness of the knowledge that has to be shared, whereas absorptive capacity creates stickiness for the knowledge user. Therefore, tacitness of knowledge is a natural impediment to the successful sharing of knowledge between individuals in organizations. Explicit knowledge , on the other hand, can be easily codified, stored at a single location, and transferred across time and space independent of individuals (Lam, 2000). It is easier to disseminate and communicate (Schulz, 2001). Explicit knowledge therefore has a natural advantage over tacit knowledge in terms of its ability to be shared relatively easily among individuals. However, just because explicit knowledge is easily transferred across individuals and settings, it should not be assumed that it is easily shared in organizations. Weiss (1999) argued that the ability to articulate knowledgeshould notbe equated with itsavailabilityfor useby othersin the organization. To support this point, he made a distinction between explicit knowledge that is easily shared with that which is not by introducing the notion of rationalized knowled ge and embedded knowledge within the context of professional services organizations. Rationalized knowledge is general, context independent, standardized, and public (e.g., methodologies for conducting consulting projects). Weiss suggested that because this knowledge has been separated from its original source and is independent of specific individuals, this knowledge is readily shared and available to all those who seek it. Embedded knowledge , on the other hand, is context dependent, narrowly applicable, personalized, and may be personally or professionally sensitive. Therefore, explicit knowledge that is embedded in nature is not likely to be easily shared among individuals. However, knowledge must be seen as more than just explicit and tacit in nature. Regardless of whether knowledge is tacit or explicit, th e value attributed to it also has a significant impact on whether and how individuals share it.



345

Value of knowledge. Knowledge is increasingly perceived as being commercially valuable, and its ownership is being recognized by both individuals and the organizations they work in (Brown & Woodland, 1999; Staples & Jarvenpaa, 2001; Weiss, 1999). When individuals perceive the knowledge they possess as a valuable commodity, knowledge sharing becomes a process mediated by decisions about what knowledge to share, when to share, and who to share it with (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). In situations in which it is valued highly, individuals may tend to claim emotional ownership of knowledge (Jones & Jordan, 1998). This sense of ownership comes from the fact that in several settings, individual knowledge is linked to status, career prospects, and individual reputations (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). The sharing of such knowledge is a complex process, and Jones and Jordan (1998) found that it involved, among other things, the extent to which individuals perceived themselves to be valued by their organization. Certain types of knowledge are valued highly by both individuals and organizations. For example, knowledge related to research and development(R&D) is valued highly because of its commercial and scientific value. Research suggests that in R&D organizations, creative power resides in a relatively small number of individuals (Armbrecht et al., 2001), creating issues of ownership particularly because it is linked to tangible outcomes such as creation of new products, patents, research grants, and individual incomes. Therefore, in highly competitive environments or those in which knowledge has high commercial value, there exists a dilemma resulting from contradictory incentives to share knowledge and to withhold it. In organizations in which an individual’s knowledge becomes his or her primary source of value to the firm, sharing this knowledge might potentially result in diminishing the value of the individual, creating a reluctance to engage in knowledge-sharing activities (Alvesson, 1993;Empson, 2001). Professionals, in particular, tend to guard their knowledge as they perceive that their own value to the firm is a product of the knowledge they possess (Weiss, 1999). Any reluctance to share knowledge is further heightened in situations characterized by uncertainties and insecurities, such as mergers (Empson, 2001) and acquisitions.

Motivation to Share Knowledge is “intimately and inextricabl y bound with people’s egos and occupations” and does not flow easily across the organization (Davenport et al., 1998, p. 45). According to Stenmark (2001), people are not likely to share knowledge without strong personal motivation. Motivational factors that influence knowledge sharing between individuals can be divided into internal and external factors. Internal factors include the perceived power attached to the knowledge and the reciprocity that results from sharing.


346


Externa l factors include relationship with the recipient and rewards for sharing. Knowledge as power . The increasing importance given to knowledge in organizations, and the increasing value attributed to individuals who possess the right kind of knowledge are conducive to creating the notion of power around knowledge. If individuals perceive that power comes from the knowledge they possess, it is likely to lead to knowledge h oarding instead of knowledge sharing (Davenport, 1997; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). According to Brown and Woodland (1999), individuals use knowledge for both control and defense. In a competitive environment, withholding knowledge from those considered competitors is often regarded as being useful to attaining one’s goals (Pfeffer, 1980). Power politics is therefore an important aspect of knowledge sharing in organizations (Weiss, 1999). In a study of knowledge management initiatives in more than 25 companies over a period of 2 years, Davenport, Eccles, and Prusak (1992) found that the primary reason these initiatives did not succeed was because these organizations didnot managewhat theauthors labeled “the politics of information” (p. 53). Blackler, Crump, and McDonald (1998) concurred with the notion that knowledge can be perceived as a source of power in organizations. They suggested that because knowledge is always situated within a particular context, it is natural that culture and power dynamics within the context affect the way knowledge is perceived and used. Reciprocity. Reciprocity, or the mutual give-and-take of knowledge can facilitate knowledge sharing if individuals see that the value-add to them depends on the extent to which they share their own knowledge with others (Hendriks, 1999; Weiss, 1999). Molm, Takahashi, and Peterson (2000) defined reciprocal acts as those in which individuals help others and share information “without negotiation of terms and without knowledge of whether or when the other will reciprocate” (p. 1396). Reciprocityas a motivator of knowledge sharing implies that individuals must be able to anticipate that sharing knowledge will prove worthwhile (Schultz, 2001), even if they are uncertain about exactly what the outcomewillbe (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).It is the expectation that those involved in sharing knowledge will be able to acquire or benefit from some of the value created by their involvement. Empirical evidence for the relationship between reciprocity and knowledge sharing indicates that receiving knowledge from others stimulates a reciprocal flow of knowledge in the direction of the sender bothhorizontally and vertically in organizations (Schulz, 2001). Support for the relationship between reciprocity and knowledge sharing was also found by Hall (2001) and Dyer and Nobeoka (200 0). Reciprocit y is also thought to be a motivator of knowledge sharing in communities of practice where knowledge sharing results in enhancing participants’ expertise and providing opportunities for recognition (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Orr, 1990).



347

A negative aspect of reciprocity is the fear of exploitation, which was found to be a serious threat to knowledge sharing between individuals (Empson, 2001). Fear of exploitation is a reflection of extreme anxiety that individuals experienc e when they perceive that they are being asked to give away valuable knowledge with very little or no benefit to them in return. Relationship with recipient . One of the external factors that influence the motivation to share knowledge is the relationship between the sender and the recipient. Relationship with the recipient includes two critical elements: (a) trust and (b) the power and status of the recipient. According to Ghoshal and Bartlett (1994), trust is one of four p rimary dimensions in organizations influencing the actions of individuals. Huemer, von Krogh, and Roos (1998) further argued that even though the distribution of power matters in organizations, trust is more importantas trust facilitates learning, and decisions to exchange knowledge under certain conditions are based on trust. In writing about knowledge communities (“groups or organizations whose primary purpose is the development and promulgation of collective knowledge” ), Kramer (1999, p. 163 ) referred to trust as being a critical factor that influenced the way knowledge was shared within these communities. Accordi ng to Kramer, barriers to trust rise from perceptions that others are not contributing equally to the community or that others might exploit their own cooperative efforts. These doubts and suspicions create a reluctance to initiate exchanges with others or respond to others’ invitations to participate in cooperative exchanges with members of the community. The importance of perceived trustworthiness to knowledge sharing in organization s was further reinforc ed by Andrews and Delahaye (2000) who found that the role of trust was central to the way knowledge was shared by individuals. Their study established that in the absence of trust, formal knowledge-sharing practices were insufficient to encourage individuals to share knowledge with others within the same work environment. Environments that are highly competitive are even more likely to have problems with knowledge sharing that arise out of trust-related issues. Others who stressed the importance of trust in knowledge sharing include Read (1962), Roberts (2000), and Zand (1972). Another aspect of the relationship with knowledge recipients points to the power and status of the knowledge sharer vis-à-vis the knowledge recipient. Issues of power that mediate the relationships between individuals involved in such exchanges influence to some extent whether and how knowledge is shared (Krone, Jablin, & Putnam, 1987; O’Reilly, 1978). In his analysis of organizational information processing, Huber (1982) stated that (a) individuals with low status and power in the organization tend to direct informatio n to those with more status and power, and (b) individuals with more status and power tend to direct information more toward their peers than toward those with low status and power. These finding s find sup-


348


port in research done by Allen and Cohen (1969 ) and Barnlund and Harland (1963). Empirical evidence also indicates that individuals tend to screen information that is passed upward in organizations, withholding or refraining from sharing information that would be unfavorable to the communicator (O’Reilly, 1978; Read, 1962) or that which would make them vulnerable (Weiss, 1999). Other research that supports this notion includes the socialpsychological research on the suppression of bad news in communication (Rosen & Tesser, 1970) and research dealing with the suppression of information that reflects adversely on the units that possess the information (Carter, 1972). Rewards for sharing . Real and perceived rewards and penalties for individuals that come from sharing and not sharing knowledge also influence the knowledge-sharing process. O’Reilly and Pondy (1980) indicated that the probability that organizational members will route information to other members is positively related to the rewards and negatively related to the penalties that they expect to result from sharing. The relationship between knowledge sharing and incentives was further supported by studies (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Quinn et al., 1996) finding that significant changes had to be made in the incentive system to encourage individuals to share their knowledge, particularly through technology-based networks in organizations. Rewards have also been considered important to knowledge sharing within intranets (Hall, 2001), in the creation and sustenance of knowledge-sharing networks (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000), and the success of knowledge-management initiatives within organizations (Earl, 2001; Liebowitz, 1999). Although there are thosewho perceive rewards and incentives to be indispensable to knowledge sharing (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; O’Reilly & Pondy, 1980; Quinn et al., 19 96), others have argued that tangible rewards alone are not sufficient to motivate knowledge sharing among individuals. Professionals participate in knowledge-sharing activities because of the intrinsic reward that comes from the work itself (Tissen, Andriessen, & Deprez, 1998), and in some cases, formal rewards may be perceived as demeaning by professionals who are motivated by a sense of involvement and contribution (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Yet others argued against the use of incentives to share knowledge claiming that in the long run, unless knowledge-sharing activities help employees meet their own goals, tangible rewards alone will not help to sustain the system (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998). Bartol and Srivastava (2002) proposed a relationship between different types of knowledge sharing and monetary reward systems. They identified four mechanisms of knowledge sharing—individual contribution to databases, formal interactions within and between teams, knowledge sharing across work units, and knowledge sharing through informal interactions. Bartol and Srivastava suggested that monetary rewards could be instituted



349

to encourage knowledge sharing through the first three mechanisms, whereas informal knowledge sharing would be rewarded by intangible incentives such as enhancing the expertise and recognition of individuals.

Opportunities to Share Opportunities to share knowledge in organizations can be both formal and informal in nature. Formal opportunities include training programs, structured work teams, and technology-based systems that facilitate the sharing of knowledge. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) referred to these as “formal interaction s,” and Rulke and Zaheer (2000) called them “purposive learning channels”—those that are designed to explicitly acquire and disseminate knowledge. Informal opportunities include personal relationships and social networks that facilitate learning and the sharing of knowledge (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Rulke and Zaheer referred to these informal opportunities as “relational learning channels.” Purposive learning channels provide individuals with a structured environment in which to share knowledge. Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002) identified some formal interventions that facilitate knowledge sharing in organizations, from basic instructions to shareknowledge, to more complex interventions such as Nomina l Group Technique and the Delphi Technique. Formal interventions and opportunities not only create a context in which to share knowledge but also provide individuals with the tools necess ary to do so. However, knowledge shared through formal channels tends to be mainly explicit in nature (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Rulke & Zaheer, 2000). The advantages of purposive learning channelsare that they are ableto connect a large number of individuals and they allow for the spe edy dissemination of shared knowledge, especially through electronic networks and other technology-based systems. Empirical evidence for successful knowledge sharing through formal channels was found by Constant, Sproull, and Kiesler (1996) and Hickins (1999). Although purpos ive learning channels play an important role in facilitating knowledge sharing, research indicates that the most amount of knowledge is shared in informal settings—through the relational learning channels (e.g., Jones & Jordan, 1998; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999; Truran, 1998). Relational channels facilitate face-to-face communication, which allows for the building of trust, which in turn is critical to sharing knowledge. These informal opportunities to interact with other people help individuals develop respect and friendship, which influences their behavior (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Granovetter (1992) called this “relational embeddedness”—the kind of personal relationships that people develop when they interact with each oth er over a period of time. Brown and Duguid (1991) , in their analysis of communities of practice found that shared learning is


350


located in complex, collaborative practices involving informal networks within the community. Stevenson and Gilly (1991) found that even when clearly designated channels of communication existed in organizations, individuals tend to relymore on informal relationshipsfor communication.

Culture of the Work Environment The factors described above are important to understanding the manner in which knowledge is shared between individuals. However, all of these factors are influenced by the culture of the work environment—the culture of the subunit and/or the culture of the organization at large. Organiza tional culture is increasingly being recognized as a major barrier to effective knowledge creation, sharing, and use (De Long & Fahey, 2000; LeonardBarton, 1995; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999). Organizations are essentially cultural entities (Cook & Yanow, 1993), and therefore, regardless of what organizations do to manage knowled ge, the influences of the organizatio n’s culture are much stronger (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Schein (1985) defined culture as a “pattern of basic assumptions” (p. 9) that is developed by a group as they grapple with and develop solutions to everyday problems. When these assumptions work well enough to be considered valid, they are taught to new members as the appropriate way to approach these problems. Schein further added that a key part of every culture is a set of assumptions about how to determine or discover what is real and“how members of a group take an action, how they determinewhat is relevant information, and when they have enough of it, to determine wheth er to act and what to do” (p. 89). Culture is therefore reflected in the values, norms, and practices of the organization, where values are manifested in norms that in turn shape specific practices (De Long & Fahey, 2000). De Long and Fahey (2000) identified certain aspects of organizational culture that influence knowledge sharing—culture shapes assumptions about which knowledge is important, it controls the relationships between the different levels of knowledge (organizational, group, and individual), and it creates the context for social interaction. It is also culture that determines the norms regarding the distribution of knowledge between an organization and the individuals in it (Staples & Jarvenpaa, 2001). Norms and practices that advocate individual ownership of knowledgeseverely impede the process of knowledge sharing withi n the organization, as the “organizational culture orients the mindset and action of every employee” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 167). Culture suggests what to do and what not to do regarding knowledge processing and communication in organizations (Davenport, 1997). An important component of culture in organizations is corporate vision (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1995). Gold et al. (2001) pointed to the fact that a corporate vision not only pro-



351

vides a sense of purpose to the organiza tion but also helps to create a system of organizational values. Organizational values that influence knowledge sharing include the creation of a sense of involvement and contribution among employees (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998), the types of knowledge that are valued (Leonard-Barton, 1995), and knowledge-related values such as trust and openness (Eisenberg & Riley, 2001; von Krogh, 1998). An organization’s culture alsoshapes the perceptions and behaviors of its employees (De Long & Fahey, 2000), and one way it does this is by establishing the context for social interactions within the organization (Gold et al., 2001; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Accord ing to De Long and Fahey (2000), the impact of culture on the context for social interaction can be assessed along three dimensions—vertical interactions (interactions with senior management), horizontal interactions (interactions with individuals at the same level in the organization), and special behaviors that promote knowledge sharing and use (sharing, teaching, and dealing with mistakes). Cultures are not homogenous across an organization (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Within organizations, there are also subcultures that are characterized by a distinctset of values, norms and practices, often resulting in their members valuing knowledge differently from other groups within the same organization (Pentland, 1995). Subcultures and their influence on knowledge sharing add even more complexity to determining those practices and norms that create the right environme nt to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. Figure 1 represents the factors identified from the literature that influence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations.

Relationship Between the Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing The four factors that have been identified are significant by themselves but do not exert their influence on knowledge sharing in isolation. The natureof knowledge, themotivation to share,the opportunities to share, and the culture of the work environment are all interconnected, with each factor influencing the other in a nonlinear fashion. Figure 2 represents a model of knowledge sharing betw een individuals in organizations that emerged from the review of literature. The model presents the four factors and illustrates the relationship between them. The model indicates that the first three factors—nature of knowledge, motivation to share, and opportunities to share—are embedded within the culture of the work environment, be it the culture of the organization or the subculture within the specific work area. Culture has an influence on the other three factors in that the culture of the organization dictates to a fairly


352


Tacit & explicit knowledge Internal factors Value of knowledge

Power Reciprocity External factors Relationship with recipient Rewards for sharing

Nature of Knowledge

Purposive learning channels Relational learning channels

Knowledge Sharing

Motivation to Share

Opportunities to Share

Culture of work environment

FIGURE 1:

Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in Organizations

Individual

Culture

Nature of Knowledge

Motivation to Share

Culture

Knowledge Sharing

Opportunities to Share Culture

Individual

FIGURE 2:

Individual

A Model of Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in Organizations



353

large extent how and what knowledge is valued, what kinds of relationsh ips and rewards it encourages in relation to knowledge sharing, and the formal and informal opportunities that individuals have to share knowledge. The following is one illustration of the interdepen dence between the factors indicated in the model. Individuals may not be inclined to share knowledge easily if the value attributed to such knowle dge is very high. However, if there are sufficient incentives (both internal and external), then individuals may be motivated to share that knowledge. O n the other hand, if there is motivation to share knowledgebut the opportunities to shareare insufficient or if the culture of the organization attributes power to those who are perceived to possess certain knowledge, then the motivation by itself may not result in real knowledge sharing. All the factors identified in this model do not exert the same amount of influence on knowledge sharing in all organizational settings. The relative importance of each of these factors is influenced by the business objectives of the organization, its structure, business practices and policies, reward systems, and culture. The absence of one or more of these factors in an organization does not preclude all knowledge sharing. A certain amount of knowledge is shared between individuals all the time, under any circumstance in organizations. However, the model of knowledge sharing presented here proposes that the four factors are strongly interrelated with each other andif each of these factors is favorable to knowledgesharing, together they create the ideal environment for knowledge sharing between individuals within the organization.

Implications for Research With the increasing importance of the people perspective of knowledge in organizations, there exist many opportunities for researchers in the area of human resource development to advance the understanding of knowledge and knowledge sharing. The survey of literature that led to the creation of the model of knowledge sharing presented in this article suggests opportunities for research that fall into the following two broad categories: • •

research related to the nature of knowledge in organizations and research related to the knowledge-sharing process and factors that influence this process.

According to Bhatt (1998), the study of knowledge in organizations is still a relatively new area for research and lacks a coherent theoretical foundation. The difficulty in finding meaningful definitions and classifications of knowledge that apply in all settings presents a significant challenge to researchers in this area. The following proposition captures a dilemma that tests both researchers and practitioners alike:


354


Proposition 1: The nature of knowledge in organizations is complex and varies across different levels and functions in the organization. For an organization to be successful in managing its knowledge, there needs to be a common understanding of what constitutes knowledge across the organization.

The fact that there is as yet no shared understanding of what constitutes knowledge in the context of organizations raises some questions for future research in this area. How should researchers define knowledge for empirical studies? Are the distinctions between knowledge and information worthy of research attention? The second category of research opportunities focuses on advancing the understanding of knowledge-sharing processes within organizations. The following propositions are derived from the model presented in this article: Proposition 2: The four factors critical to knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations are the nature of knowledge, the motivation to share, opportunities for sharing, and the culture of the work environment. Proposition 3: All four factors are interrelated and if each of them is favorable, together they create an optimal environment for knowledge sharing within an organization.

Future research could also contribute to clarifying what we know about each of thefactorsthat areidentifiedin themodelas influencing knowledgesharing. Proposition 4: Knowledge is perceived and valued differently by individuals at different levels and across different functions in organizations. The differences in the way knowledgeis identified andvaluedhavean impact on theway knowledge is shared among individuals. Proposition 5: Motivation to share knowledge is determined by a combination of internal and external factors. An ideal combination of these factors results in high motivation among individuals to share what they know with others. Proposition 6: Opportunities to shareknowledge within organizations can be both relational and formal in nature. A balanced combination of relational and formal learning channels is critical to effective knowledge sharing. Proposition 7: Culture of the work environment is the most critical factor that influences knowledge sharing within organizations. The culture of the organization and subcultures within the organization have a significant influence on the other three factors.

With the rapid advances being made in the field of practice related to knowledge management, there is a significant gap between research and practice in this area (Grover & Davenport, 2001). The increasing sophistication in technology-based knowledge management systems call attention to one area where more research is needed. Existing literature suggests that individuals are more likely to share knowledge w ith others through informal interactions than



355

through the use of formal systems. Scholars with a human resourc e orientation need to partner with technologists to identify how formal and informal knowledge-sharing processes may be combined to effectively facilitate knowledge sharing in organizations. Research could also recommend how formal means of knowledge sharing such as training programs can be redesigned to both share knowledge effectively as well as help individuals develop “ways of knowing that make use of knowledge in new, innovative, and more productive ways” (Cook & Brown, 1999, p. 398). In-depth investigative methods such as case studies and ethnographies could be used to discover the nuances of the knowledge-sharing process within specific organizational settings. Such studies would also be able to identify factors that motivate and inhibit knowledge-sharing behavior within the contexts chosen for the study. Subsequent research could then be done to verify whether these factors apply across organizations, using methods that allow results to be generalized to larger populations. New research in this area may also be able to identify emerging factors that influence the knowledge-sharing process that have not been documented in the literature thus far.

Conclusion It is clear that knowledge sharing in organizations is a complex process that is value laden and driven by power equations within the organization. Knowledge in organizations is dynamic in nature and is dependent on social relationships between individuals for its creation, sharing, and use. More knowledge is shared informally than through formal channels, and much of theprocess is dependenton theculture of thework environment. This article has presented a model that describes knowledge sharing between individuals, identifying factors that have a significant influence on the knowledgesharing process and illustrating the relationship between these factors.

References Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19. Alvesson,M. (1993). Managementof knowledge-intensive companies. NewYork:Walter de Gruyer. Alvesson, M. (1995). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies , 30(6), 997-1015. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018. Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies , 37 (6), 2322-2380. Armbrecht, F. M. R., Jr., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., & Farris, G. F. (2001). Knowledge man agement in research and development. Research Technology Management , 44(2), 28-48. Argyris,C. (1990). Integratingthe individual and the organization. London:Transaction Publishing.


356


Barnlund,D. C., & Harland, C. (1963). Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communication networks. Sociometry, 26 , 466-479. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 9(1), 64-77. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems , 18(1), 23-55. Bhatt, G. D. (1998). Managing knowledge through people. Knowledge and Process Management , 5(3), 165-171. Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16 (6), 1021-1046. Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. (1998). Knowledge, organizations and competition. In G. von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowledge (pp. 67-86). London: Sage. Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6 (4), 350-372. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Brown, R. B., & Woodland, M. J. (1999). Managing knowledge wisely: A case study in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Management Studies , 6 (2), 175-198. Carter, R. M. (1972). Communications in organizations: A guide to information sources . Detroit: Gale Research. Chakravarthy, B., Zaheer, A., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A field study. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Strategic Management Resource Center. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152. Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7 (2), 119-135. Cook, S. D. N.,& Brown,J. S. (1999).Bridging epistemologies: Thegenerative dancebetweenorganizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Studies, 10(4), 381-400. Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373-390. Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Davenport,T. H.,De Long, D. W., & Beers,M. C. (1998). Successfulknowledgemanagementprojects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57. Davenport, T. H., Eccles, R. G., & Prusak, L. (1992, Fall). Information politics. Sloan Management Review, pp. 53-65. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal , 21(3), 345-367. Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 215-233. Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Thenew handbookof organizational communication (pp.291-322).Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage. Empson, L. (2001).Fear ofexploitationand fearof contamination:Impedimentsto knowledge transfer in mergers between professional service firms. Human Relations, 54(7), 839-862.



357

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensionof qualitymanagement. StrategicManagement Journal, 15 (SpecialIssue),91-112. Gold, A. H., Malhotra,A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).Knowledge management: An organizationalperspective. Journal of Management Information Systems , 18(1), 185-214. Gourlay, S. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4(1), 27-46. Granovetter,M. S. (1992).Problemsof explanationin economicsociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25-56). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Grover,V., & Davenport,T. H. (2001).Generalperspectiveson knowledge management: Fosteringa research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems , 18(1), 5-21. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71-80. Hall,H. (2001).Input-friendliness:Motivatingknowledgesharingacrossintranets. Journal of Information Science, 27 (3), 139-146. Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management , 6 (2), 91-100. Hickins, M. (1999). Xerox shares its knowledge. Management Review, 88(8), 40-45. Huber, G. (1982). Organizational information systems: Determinants of their performance and behavior. Management Science, 28(2), 138-155. Huber, G. (1991).Organizationallearning: The contributingprocesses andthe literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. Huemer, L.,vonKrogh,G., & Roos, J. (1998). Knowledgeand theconceptof trust.In G. von Krogh, J. Roos,& D.Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managingand measuringknowledge (pp.123-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jones, P., & Jordan, J. (1998).Knowledge orientations and teameffectiveness. International Journal of Technology Management , 16 , 152-161. Kogut,B., & Zander, U. (1992).Knowledgeof thefirm, combinative capabilities, andthe replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. Kramer,R. M. (1999).Socialuncertaintyand collective paranoiain knowledge communities:Thinkingandacting inthe shadow ofdoubt. InL. L. Thompson,J. M.Levine, & D.M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Krone,K. J.,Jablin, F. M.,& Putnam, L. L. (1987). Communicationtheory andorganizational communication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 1840). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lam, A. (1997). Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problem of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18(6), 973-996. Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21(3), 487-513. Leonard-Barton,D. (1995). Wellspringsof knowledge:Buildingandsustainingthe source of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lessard, D. R., & Zaheer, S. (1996). Breaking the silos: Distributed knowledge and strategic responses to volatile exchange rates. Strategic Management Journal , 17 (7), 513-543. Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge management strategy. Knowledge and Process Management , 6 (1), 37-40. Lowendahl,B. R.,Revang, O.,& Fosstenlokken, S. M. (2001).Knowledgeand value creationin professional service firms: A framework for analysis. Human Relations, 54(7), 911-931. McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver: Knowledge management. California Management Review, 41(4), 103-117.


358


McDermott, R.,& O’Dell, C. (2001).Overcomingculturalbarriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management , 5(1), 76-85. Molm, L. D.,Takahashi,N., & Peterson,G. (2000).Risk andtrust in social exchange:An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396-1426. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. Nidumolu, S. R.,Subramani, M.,& Aldrich,A. (2001).Situatedlearning andthe situatedknowledge web: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 115-150. Nonaka, I. (1994).The dynamictheory of organizational knowledge creation. OrganizationScience , 5(1), 14-37. Nonaka, I.,& Takeuchi,H. (1995). Theknowledgecreating company:How Japanesecompanies create the dynamics of i nnovation. New York: Oxford University Press. O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know. New York: Free Press. Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370-386. O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations, 31, 173-193. O’Reilly, C., & Pondy, L. (1980). Organizational communication. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior . Columbus, OH: Grid. Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in a service culture. In D. S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering: Memory in society (pp. 169189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pan,S. L.,& Scarbrough,H. (1999).Knowledgemanagement inpractice:An exploratorycase study. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management , 11(3), 359-374. Pemberton,M. J. (1998). Knowledge management(KM) and the epistemic tradition. Records Management Quarterly, 32(3), 58-62. Pentland, B. T. (1995). Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technology , 5(1), 1-21. Pfeffer, J. (1980). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996).Leveraging intellect. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 7-27. Read,W.M. (1962).Upwardcommunication inindustrialhierarchies. HumanRe lations, 15, 3-15. Roberts, J. (2000). Fromknow-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management , 12(4), 429-443. Roos, J., & vonKrogh, G. (1992). Figuring out yourcompetence configuration. EuropeanManagement Journal, 10(4), 422-444. Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry, 33(3), 253-263. Rulke, D. L., & Zaheer, S. (2000).Shared and unshared transactive knowledge in complex organizations: An exploratorystudy. In Z. Shapira & T. Lant(Eds.), Organizationalcognition: Computation and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schultz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681. Simon, H. A. (1991).Boundedrationality andorganizational learning. OrganizationScience , 2, 125134. Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17 , 5-9.



359

Staples, S. D., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems , 18(1), 151-183. Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging tacitorganizational knowledge. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17 (3), 9-24. Stevenson, W. B., & Gilly, M. C. (1991). Information processing and problem solving: The migration of problems through formal positions and networks of ties. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 918-928. Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Doubleday Currency. Tissen, R., Andriesson, D., & Deprez, L. F. (1998). Value-based knowledge management: Creating st the 21 century company: Knowledge intensive, people rich. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Truran, W. R. (1998). Pathways for knowledge: How companies learn through people. Engineering Management Journal, 10(4), 15-20. Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973-993. vonHippel,E. (1994).“Stickyinformation” andthe locusof problemsolving:Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429-430. vonKrogh,G. (1998).Care inknowledge creation. California ManagementReview, 40(3), 133-153. Venzin, M.,von Krogh, G., & Roos,J. (1998).Future research intoknowledgemanagement. In G. R. von Krogh,R. Johan,& D.Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding,managing andmeasuring Knowledge (pp. 26-66). London: Sage. Weiss,L. (1999).Collectionand connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in professionalservice. Organization Development Journal , 17 (4), 61-72. Zand,D. (1972). Trust and managerialproblem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 , 229239.

Minu Ipe recently completed a Ph.D. speciali zing in human resource development from the University of Minnesota. She has been involved with both the technology and people aspects of knowledge management for several years, first a s an HRD m anager and then as a student and researcher. Her interests include knowledge mapping, knowledge processes within and across teams, cross-cultural issues related to knowledge management, and organizational learning.


1.Knowledge Sharing in Organizations a Conceptual Framework

Recommend Documents