The impact of organisational elements on experiences of knowledge

The impact of power on knowledge has largely been neglected in knowledge management literature (Hislop, 2009; Heizmann, 2011). In this research however, emphasis is placed on the notion of power as it is understood as being inherent to the organisational elements introduced in this section since the concepts of

knowledge and power are regarded as inseparable (Foucault, 1980). Kirkebak and Tolsby (2006) support Foucault’s (1980) view by stating that knowledge cannot be understood without taking into account the power base to which knowledge is linked.

Foucault (1980) understands all acts of power as embedded in particular ways of knowing and all statements of knowledge as entailing the exercise of power by implicitly preferring specific knowledge and probing the legitimacy of other

knowledge at the same time. Foucault (1980) locates power within evolving social relationships which resonates with the understanding of knowledge or knowing as being embedded in specific contexts, social interaction and work practices (Hislop, 2009). Consequently, power from Foucault’s (1980) viewpoint is not a resource or possession which individuals can utilise to influence other individuals but something which is constituted through social interaction which is in line with the

social-constructionist perspective of this research. The process through which certain knowledge becomes legitimate and other knowledge becomes marginalised is regarded as a social process of negotiation between individuals articulating different understandings (Marshall and Rollinson, 2004; Heizmann, 2011).

Jackson and Carter (2000, p.76) understand power as “the ability to get someone to do something that they do not particularly want to do”. According to Jackson and Carter (2000) only those who are given the power by organisations to contribute to organisational debates participate in the organisation’s knowledge creation.

Kirkebak and Tolsby (2006) approach the notion of power from different lenses: for instance from the point of view of individuals who are in a position to exercise power and for whom power is a tool which supports them in achieving their goals, to a viewpoint of power as something which is imposed on individuals who are in a position of having to obey to those in power. In contrast to Foucault (1980), Kirkebak and Tolsby (2006) and Jackson and Carter (2000) regard power as a tool, as

something people possess. According to Kirkebak and Tolsby (2006) it is important to note that often the creation of knowledge which happens at the lower hierarchical level of the organisation is impeded by those in power. Power can not only inhibit the learning and knowledge creation processes of these individuals, but it can also hinder the ones without power in expressing or communicating their ideas.

Consequently, their input to the creation of new knowledge is excluded and only certain kinds of knowledge, which either stems from the ones in power or supports those in power to achieve their political goals, become commonly accepted

knowledge in an organisation (Kirkebak and Tolsby, 2006). At the same time, power may also lead to the suppression of learning and knowing processes when

individuals withhold knowledge and therewith impede the sharing of it (Kirkebak and Tolsby, 2006).

This thesis concurs with Foucault’s (1980) understanding that power and knowledge are inseparable and that power is embedded in and constituted through social interaction. However, in line with Kirkebak and Tolsby’s (2006) view, power can deliberately be utilised by those who are given power as for example an

organisation’s management.

In connection with the notion of power, the organisational structure can be viewed as a tool to exercise power and control. Organisational structures constitute the duties and responsibilities of individuals depending on their role within the organisation. Structure is supposed to create order and organise relations in organisations in order to achieve certain purposes and often works in favour of those in power (Jackson and Carter, 2000). Nevertheless, formal structures can also provide a framework within which informal, social mechanisms can take place supported and guarded by structures (Rashman et al., 2009; Ekvall, 1996).

Power can be regarded as determined by the relationship between an individual and the organisation’s structure since the structure provides the framework of rules and the provision of resources which allocates control to those in power (Coopey, 1999).

However, in order to enable processes of knowing and learning in large

organisations control needs to be assigned to local decision-makers who are close to where the generation of knowledge takes place (Senge, 1990). Maister (2003) assigns special importance to consultancy management when commenting on organisational structure. From his point of view, departmental structures can support and hinder knowledge sharing. When professionals with similar expert areas work together the interaction with professionals in other expert areas is reduced. Hence, Maister (2003) suggests setting up business client groups or industry groups which combine different functional professional disciplines in order to improve the

conditions for sharing knowledge or generating new knowledge. Closely related to the organisation’s structure are procedures and processes which are usually introduced by management in order to control how work is done. They can impede

the necessary flexibility for knowledge creation processes if organised too strictly but can also prescribe approaches such as post-project reviews which contribute to learning and building of new knowledge (Popper and Lipshitz, 2000).

The organisational context or climate is regarded as vital in organisations which seek to foster learning and knowing processes and is also strongly influenced by the notion of power (Merx-Chermin and Nijhof, 2005). According to Weick (1996) the organisational context supports knowing and learning processes when it encourages trust, cross-boundary networking and risk-taking and therefore supports the view of Andrews and Delahaye (2000) who positively link those aspects to the benefits of informal networks. The organisational context should not only allow but strongly foster the questioning of existing procedures, experimentation and openness as well as constructive challenging and critiquing of the work of others without blaming (Naot et al., 2004). In order to foster learning and knowing processes those in power have to be willing to give up parts of their power (Coopey, 1999). Management may be able to concentrate and control knowledge creation in order to avoid “messy compromises” where many individuals deliver input (Coopey and Burgoyne, 2000, p.877) by hanging on to power and, as a consequence, denying individuals the space they need to engage in the social processes of learning and knowledge creation. However, when management uses their power for this purpose potential for knowledge creation in the wider community remains unused (Coopey and Burgoyne, 2000). In organisations where power plays a major role, competition and mistrust will create a win-lose situation in which organisational learning as well as knowledge creation will only take place in a very constricted form (Coopey, 1999).

Often the transformation of an organisation into a place where knowledge creation is enabled is inhibited by those in power who resist giving up control and deny access to crucial organisational knowledge to safeguard and further build up their very own power (Coopey, 1999). Further, an organisational context which is connected to employees feeling rewarded for sharing their work is vital since otherwise individuals may feel exploited when sharing their skills and experiences and therefore might resist doing so (Lucas, 2000).

As already mentioned, trust plays a major role in knowing and learning processes (Levin et al., 2002). Previous research on trust strongly suggests that trusting relationships lead to greater knowledge exchange since individuals who trust are more willing to share knowledge and to listen (Andrews and Delahaye, 2000). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, in organisations where power plays a major role trust can often not be built which inhibits knowing and learning processes

(Coopey, 1999). Two specific forms of trust play a major role in this context: the benevolence-based trust and the competence-based trust (Levin et al., 2002). The first form of trust is often based on a long-term relationship between two individuals in which no one intends to harm the other when given the opportunity to do so for example by being equipped with power. However, in the process of knowledge sharing and the creation of knowledge the second form of trust plays a major role.

Here, one individual trusts another because he or she is convinced that the other person is knowledgeable about a given subject area. The maximum level of trust can be achieved when trust has been established on both levels (Levin et al., 2002).

Research has shown that competence-based trust is based on factors such as the use of a common language, sharing of a common vision and discretion independent of the duration of a relationship whereas benevolence-based trust additionally builds on receptivity and strong ties. Relationships which are based on trust give

individuals the confidence to draw attention to themselves and to articulate ideas without being afraid of receiving negative feedback, being exposed or being

rejected. By doing this, they make themselves vulnerable which individuals are only willing to do in trustful relationships (Meyer et al., 1995; Schilling and Kluge, 2009;

Argote et al., 2003; Fulop and Rifkin, 1997). Closely linked to this aspect is the handling of mistakes. Only if employees feel safe and trust their peers as well as their management they will be willing to communicate openly instead of covering mistakes which is viewed as crucial in order for an organisation to learn from

mistakes which is also regarded as vital for the creation of new knowledge (Cannon and Edmondson, 2001; Dovey, 2009).

Hence, an environment which provides individuals with the opportunity to develop trustful relationships in order to foster knowledge sharing and knowledge creation activities on all levels within the organisation is important. Managers can actively support this by fostering a common understanding of values, goals and how those goals are planned to be achieved. Further, managers should be role-models in demonstrating skills such as receptivity and discretion. Finally, management should enable and foster people to come together in a physical sense in order for them to develop social networks which are based on trustful relationships (Argote et al., 2003). But not only trust between individuals on the same organisational level needs to be fostered. Also, it is important that individuals can trust their employer. Mistrust can easily turn into fear in this context which, among other consequences, leads to the unwillingness or even inability to learn and to share ideas (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000; Ekvall, 1996).

Another aspect which is viewed as influencing knowing and learning processes of individuals within the organisational context is the degree of autonomy they are provided with. Autonomy can be understood as the degree of trust in individuals to act independently (McKenzie and van Winkelen, 2004). Managing individuals, in particular in knowledge-intensive organisations, requires the maintenance of a fine balance between enacting power and control and providing autonomy. In order to allow individuals to create knowledge, management should give autonomy not only in relation to individuals’ work patterns, but also in terms of time and location to pursue knowing and learning activities (Hislop, 2009). Knowledge workers in

particular are regarded as the primary asset of knowledge-intensive firms (Alvesson, 2004). In many cases individuals are more skilled than their managers and highly specialised experts. Thus, management is not able to remain in control of

knowledge-work processes anyway. Therefore, the responsibility of management should be shifted to facilitating favourable conditions in which knowledge sharing and creation can take place (Newell et al., 2009).

The notion of motivation is another element of the organisational environment which impacts on knowledge creation activities (Hislop, 2009). Motivation can be divided into two categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation, on the one hand, describes motivation that is located within individuals and expresses itself in enjoyment of performing certain tasks or acquiring new skills and competences.

Intrinsically motivated people derive satisfaction by achieving these goals and derive further motivation for future tasks. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is derived from external sources, the desire to either attain or avoid something outside the self.

Intrinsically motivated individuals are more likely to work independently and to show more persistence in achieving their goal despite external obstacles (Walker et al., 2006). Some groups of professionals, consultants for example, have developed a strong sense of themselves being a professional which is originated in extensive university education, training and social relations with people of similar educational backgrounds (Alvesson, 2004). Consequently, their identity is closely linked to their profession which not only concerns their identity as an employee but often also reflects how they view themselves as a complete person – at work as well as in their private lives. Maintaining this identity as a professional provides a major intrinsic motivation for many of them (Alvesson, 2004). According to Maister (2003) it is vital to continually challenge consultants in order to keep up their intrinsic motivation.

However, organisations employing mainly individuals who can be expected to be highly intrinsically motivated may also have to provide a certain context to maintain this intrinsic motivation. In order to retain intrinsically motivated individuals

organisations have to trust them and allow them space and autonomy in which these individuals are able to fulfil their role. Acknowledging and rewarding individuals’ achievements is equally important to maintain their motivation

(Davenport, 2005; Maister, 2003). Further, attractive external conditions have to be provided such as satisfying job roles, career prospects, space and the possibility for further development and good social relations since even individuals who are highly intrinsically motivated respond positively to aspects which increase their extrinsic motivation (Alvesson, 2004). Organisations not offering these conditions will most likely not diminish this intrinsic motivation but will not be able to retain these

employees who are aware of the value they contribute to the employer and seek an organisation that can offer these external conditions (Switzer, 2008). This research appreciates the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and will retain it. In this thesis, the two concepts are not understood as being strictly separated from each other and drawing from completely different sources but as interlinked and constituted by similar sources.

The notion of leadership which can be regarded as another manifestation of power is also viewed as important in order to enable and support knowledge creation activities (Merx-Chermin and Nijhof, 2005; Taminiau et al., 2009). Beside the

aspects already mentioned in previous paragraphs of this section, managers should provide a framework in which each individual is provided with the opportunity to develop and where clear steps are provided on how to advance in his or her career in order to maintain intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Mitchell and Meacheam, 2011). Further, direct management should give up parts of their power and provide freedom and autonomy to each individual in which he or she can engage in

knowledge and learning activities (Switzer, 2008; Dvir et al., 2002; Coopey, 1999;

Taminiau et al., 2009). Managers who are actively involved in and enthusiastic about learning and knowing processes are very likely to motivate their employees to contribute to these activities (Chong and Ma, 2010). However, in order to be trusted by employees it is regarded as important that managers are authentic in their behaviour (Garvey and Williamson, 2002) for example by also addressing aspects which are not handled well by the organisation in connection to knowing and learning activities. According to Dovey (2009) trust needs to be based on interpersonal bonds and collective performance. Hence, leaders need to spend sufficient face-to-face time with their employees in order for a trustful relationship to develop. Further, it is regarded as significant that the organisation’s management’s communication with regard to their vision, strategy or approach towards knowledge and learning is congruent to their leadership team’s behaviour and organisational

structures and procedures. Otherwise, the organisation and its management is likely to be perceived as not authentic by individuals which might lead to mistrust and less willingness and motivation to participate and contribute to learning and knowing processes within the organisation (Garvey and Williamson, 2002).

The organisational elements explored in this section have been adopted from different researchers. Merx-Chermin and Nijhof (2005) identified the organisational elements of organisational structure, procedures and processes, organisational climate, autonomy and motivation as impacting on knowledge creation activities but have not explored how they impact on the individual experiences of knowledge creation in their research. Some researchers explored the impact of organisational elements on individuals in the organisational context in general or in relation to knowledge-intensive firms (Maister, 2003; Wong, 2005; Weick, 1996; Lucas, 2000;

Senge, 1990; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000; Starbuck, 1992; Cannon and Edmondson, 2001). Other researchers explored the impact of isolated organisational elements in relation to knowledge, learning, knowledge creation and innovation (Foucault, 1980;

Coopey, 1999; Kirkebak and Tolsby, 2006; Ekvall, 1996; Popper and Lipshitz, 2000;

Szulanski, 1996; Naot et al., 2004; Levin et al., 2002; Taminiau et al., 2009).

Taminiau et al. (2009) explored innovations through informal knowledge sharing in management consultancies from a social-constructionist perspective by carrying out interviews with management consultants from different management consultancies.

Their interpretations of the interview accounts suggest that knowledge sharing can only lead to innovation if the consultants are supported by their management and the organisational context promotes the sharing of ideas.

The review of literature in the field of knowledge creation suggests that research on organisational learning and knowledge sharing often also includes aspects of knowledge creation which indicates that the concepts are often not clearly

distinguished which is in line with Jakubik (2008) who regards knowledge creation as being part of learning processes. In line with the social-constructionist

perspective on knowledge and learning taken in this research the notion of

knowledge creation is regarded as difficult to look at in isolation from learning and knowledge sharing during which knowledge creation occurs. Hence, when looking at previous research on knowledge creation, research dealing with organisational learning and knowledge sharing which also establishes a link to knowledge creation has also been considered.

Although these researchers understood the organisational elements as factors, inhibitors or barriers and did not necessarily focus on knowing and learning processes their work contributes to the theory base of this research since the organisational elements are embedded in the organisational context and therefore impact on the consultants’ experiences of knowledge creation from a

social-constructionist perspective. The organisational elements discussed are summarised in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Organisational elements explored in previous research Organisational element Researchers

Power Foucault (1980), Coopey (1999), Kirkebak and Tolsby (2006)

Organisational structure Ekvall (1996), Maister (2003), Merx-Chermin and Nijhof (2005)

Procedures and processes Popper and Lipshitz (2000), Merx-Chermin and Nijhof (2005), Wong (2005)

Organisational context/climate Weick (1996), Lucas (2000), Naot et al. (2004), Merx-Chermin and Nijhof (2005), Taminiau et al.

(2009)

Trust Senge (1990), Pfeffer and Sutton (2000), Cannon and Edmondson (2001), Levin et al. (2002) Autonomy Starbuck (1992), Merx-Chermin and Nijhof (2005) Motivation Szulanski (1996), Merx-Chermin and Nijhof (2005) Leadership Wong (2005), Taminiau et al. (2009)

In this research the organisational elements are understood as being socially constructed through the actions and interaction of individuals within the

organisational context. Senior management is ‘traditionally’ considered to have the power to influence the organisational context.

This consideration of the impact of organisational elements on individuals’

experiences of knowledge creation processes concludes the review of existing literature on knowledge and learning in organisations. The next section considers the implications of this review for this current study.