Issues Associated with Managing Knowledge

It has been identified above that creating and sharing knowledge are critical to an organisation‟s ongoing sustainability and competitiveness. Not every person reacts favourably to the idea of sharing their knowledge and managers need to be aware of reasons why behavioural patterns may impede the introduction of a knowledge-sharing culture.

Robbins, Millett and Waters-Marsh (2004) define organisational culture as “A system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organisation from other organisations” (p. 498). They point to culture being the social bond that keeps the organisation together and develops the behaviour and attitudes of employees. Culture is an important aspect of an organisation, and a culture that does not unite its people in a common goal to achieve the organisation‟s vision is an inhibiter of organisational development.

Culture influences behaviour and attempting to make a transition from a culture where sharing is not the norm, to one that emphasises the importance of sharing can be traumatic for those involved (King and Anderson, 2002). Difficulties associated with knowledge sharing are evidence of a reluctance to change entrenched approaches to work. Making cultural changes takes time, but critical elements for being successful in making the change are communicating why change is

necessary, its mode of implementation, the impact on people, and inviting people to participate in the change process. In every group there arises the elements of status and power that can create difficulties, but it is important to move existing behavioural patterns towards the desired outcome (King and Anderson, 2002).

To establish a culture of knowledge sharing, management needs to give credence to the importance of knowledge, and to see that people are valued for their contribution. This is likely to require the changing of existing employee and management behavioural patterns, such as knowledge hoarding, to behaviours that embrace knowledge sharing as an accepted and normal activity. Appropriate leadership is essential to the creating and sharing of knowledge. A transformational style of leadership provides an encouraging and empowering approach and is one that is apposite. An example of such a leadership style was that of Robert Buckman, of Buckman Laboratories (later Bulabs), Memphis, Tennessee, who transformed the operational activities of the organisation when in the 1980s he set in process the move towards a knowledge sharing entity. Systems were established by the Buckman organisation for the transference of knowledge to provide their many companies in the United States, and around the world, with access to the knowledge of experts in problem solving situations (Buckman, 2004). The transformation established a proactive knowledge-sharing environment. This said, not everyone can aspire to the visionary status of a Buckman and hence, more everyday, but effective approaches need to be developed.

Encouraging sharing will involve action at the most basic level such as making clear that the sharing of knowledge will not result in threats to individual employment. Concern about job security brings with it a strong resistance to sharing knowledge. Darling (1997) gives the example, “this stuff about knowledge sharing is nothing more than me dumping what I know in a pool so I will become dispensable” (p. 11). The issue of job security is an important one as people can think that if they have shared their knowledge they no longer have control over certain areas of their work and therefore, are vulnerable to losing their position. Managing the process involves recognising the knowledge attributes of employees, being supportive, and acknowledging success. Sharing knowledge to promote development and growth extends benefits to employees by enhancing their value not only at a personal level, but also making them a more valuable employee. When socialising in the work place or at some work-related function, the subject of conversation frequently turns to what people have most in common, and that is work. However, non-work related

conversations should not be regarded as time wasting – they are in fact worthwhile as builders of trust. In all of this, trust is a factor of fundamental importance.

Robbins et al. (2004) define trust as “A positive expectation that another won‟t act opportunistically” (p. 362). Lack of trust arises from not having confidence in the source of the knowledge, or preferring to be the creator of knowledge rather than reusing existing knowledge (Michailova and Husted, 2003).

Where a poor level of trust exists, motivation is likely to be low and people will be reluctant to share knowledge, and will impact on the operational activities of the organisation. Such behaviour restricts the flow of knowledge, and affects the quality of knowledge that is likely to be imparted. This raises difficulties around how to assess the knowledge that is available, and whether it can be verified for accuracy. In the end it may be necessary to make a judgement with regard to the truthfulness of the knowledge that is based on the intention of the organisation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). In an organisation where there is a strong affinity amongst employees, and where they are united in their commitment to the organisation, there will be a high level of trust. This highlights the need for sound leadership qualities in management. A trusting environment promotes a greater sharing of knowledge. The higher the level of trust, the greater the openness and good intent there will be amongst people, and this in turn will generate a higher level of sharing. However, it takes time to build trust. A further issue can be difficulties amongst employees from different cultures. This is a situation that may well need to be addressed by organisations as the number of multi-cultural workforces increase.

The level of trust among people is symptomatic of the type of culture existing in an organisation. It will be beneficial to all involved by making sure that people from other cultures are welcomed and integrated into the workplace. Trust is encouraged to develop through good communication. The longer a person is known, the higher the level of trust that is built up, and familiarity with the source of knowledge generates a greater acceptance of that knowledge.

An impediment to knowledge sharing that can arise is that people are not interested in sharing. There is the “knowledge is power” syndrome. Allee (1997) refers to the old knowledge equation “knowledge = power – so hoard it” (p. 10), but with today‟s extensive use of technology and the impact it has on organisations, the old equation is rapidly being put to rest. “Today, the new knowledge equation is knowledge = power – so share it and it will multiply” (p. 10). Where there

are people who regard knowledge as a powerful weapon, they are in effect a threat to an organisation. A further issue raised by Kluge et al. (2001) is the “not invented here” syndrome explained as “the tendency to neglect, ignore or, worse still, disparage knowledge that is not created within your own department” (p. 33). This situation can also arise through a mistrust of external knowledge. Where such situations exist management should review the organisational culture, and where necessary, to turn it into one that is all encompassing and caring in order to encourage sharing.

Loss of knowledge when resignations, promotions and redundancies occur also has a detrimental effect on an organisation, and on the employees who are still working in it. Too often it is realised that valuable knowledge has been lost because it was not captured and/or passed on. It is important to codify as much of the organisational knowledge as possible.

When there is a reluctance to share knowledge, the introduction of an incentive system may provide a way of changing behaviour. Several authors suggest the use of incentives to encourage sharing knowledge and to counter knowledge hoarding behaviour (e.g. Wenger and Snyder, 2000; Kankanhalli et al., 2002; Laupase, 2003). Factors to be considered in such circumstances are reciprocity, repute, and altruism (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Reciprocity considers the situation of expectation of return payment for previously having given knowledge. Whether there is an anticipated equal value, or not, knowledge shared through reciprocity may not be the issue, but recognition for being a sharer of knowledge may be. To be known as a source of valuable knowledge, and being willing to share it, enhances an employee‟s reputation. From an altruistic perspective the knowledge sharer may be someone who is happy to receive a „thank you‟.

Any system in which incentives are offered for sharing knowledge is likely to be perceived in subjective terms, and extremely difficult to be seen as fair and equitable by other people. A system where there is greater visibility of the value of sharing, e.g. through successful outcomes, is likely to have greater acceptance. Research carried out by Wenger and Snyder (2000) reported a personnel evaluation system at the World Bank that places reliance on intrinsic benefits such as being a member of a community of practice with the opportunity to solve problems, coming up with new ideas, and building relationships with those who share a common passion. The approach taken by the World Bank illustrates how people can be encouraged to share without the necessity of monetary incentives. Kankanhalli et al. (2002) found that few organisations are using incentives, but suggests that career advancement, and empowerment offering more responsibility and

autonomy to employees will lead to greater sharing of knowledge. Laupase (2003) identified 85 per cent of interviewees in a research project as being in agreement with the statement that “rewards motivate them to share their knowledge because they believed that they need to be rewarded for contributing their „valuable‟ experience.” (p. 96). Those who did not agree felt that this use of rewards would “create disharmony within the firm” (p. 96).

The situation around incentives for knowledge sharing is complex. It is important to provide as many opportunities as possible for sharing and accessing knowledge, as this will send appropriate signals with regard to sharing. At the same time, any attempt to enforce knowledge sharing is likely to have a detrimental effect on the organisational culture and relationships amongst people. Identifying best practices is an approach that can be taken, because sharing knowledge with other employees about how a problem was resolved opens the avenue for positive interaction and can encourage knowledge creation (Mitchell, 2003). Regular meetings for the purpose of sharing work- related experiences also provide an avenue for knowledge creation and sharing that generates a collaborative environment, and one from which everyone can see the benefits (Mitchell, 2005).

Attempts to capture and codify knowledge for the purpose of sharing it across an organisation presents difficulties, but nevertheless many organisations strive to do this. Tacit knowledge, as discussed in Chapter One, cannot be made explicit, yet it is essential that organisations capture and codify as much knowledge as possible about processes and procedures, scientific formulae, and reports. Codifying such knowledge provides the opportunity to make it available, if and as appropriate, to employees to enable them to enhance the carrying out of their activities (Wiig, 1999). Although capturing knowledge may be important, Snowden (2003) refers to the loss of content involved in codification, saying “we always know more than we can say and we will always say more than we can write down” (p. 3). This clearly indicates that no matter how keen an organisation is to codify knowledge, there will only be partial representation of what is known.

There is growing concern over the ethical and legal issues relating to organisations seeking to capture, share and transform knowledge into intellectual capital (McCann and Buckner, 2004). Intellectual capital initiatives are intended to make it easier for knowledge to move around inside and outside the organisation, and McCann and Buckner indicate “This can be threatening to say the least when intellectual capital, as well as intellectual property, moves openly across boundaries” (p. 2). It is essential when sharing knowledge with external parties that employees are aware of associated ethical and legal issues that may adversely affect the organisation.

Brooking (1996) points to the importance of maximising the availability of knowledge, and illustrates this by referring to a survey carried out by the Swiss Gottlilieb Duttweiler Foundation. It was found that only about 20 per cent of knowledge present within a company is actually used and therefore, there is considerable potential in the untapped 80 per cent. The future of an organisation depends on its intellectual capital to provide it with a competitive advantage. It is important that within the intellectual capital strategy there are plans for the effective management of knowledge at all levels of the organisation, but particularly so at the operational level. This will ensure that there is maximum value in the aggregation of the knowledge that makes up the organisation‟s intellectual capital.

The following section discusses innovations as outcomes from the management of intellectual capital.