The places knowledge sharing occurs

Having explored the tacit to explicit knowledge journey the next logical step is to consider the tacit knowledge flow within the CoP itself. What is interesting is to understand how the integration of tacit and explicit knowledge occurs and if there is a link to the degree of community participation. Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002) described varying degrees of community participation as essential dynamism of CoP function. They considered those most active within the CoP as being close to its core and participating in discussions and wider community activities on behalf of the CoP. They go on to describe those on the periphery of the CoP as not necessarily actively engaged but who gain much from observing and listening and seeking their own value from those who are actively engaged. The findings from this study, however, may indicate a different perspective.

Participant 7 challenges this thinking by describing the need for all to participate and suggested the CoP and the CoP leader were required to encourage engagement and participation. It is seen as important to be engaged and to contribute for the CoP to be successful. It is also suggested that those who don’t are more likely to drift away and should this gain momentum then the CoP itself is at risk.

The findings highlighted the issue of engagement occurring within and on the periphery of the CoP. The participants though did not think of this in terms of ‘active’ engagement although as described above the need for engagement was seen as critical to the ongoing success both for individual and the group. What many of the participants went on to suggest was that their view of engagement was one where tacit sharing was taking place not only at the core or more formal meeting of the CoP but that significant sharing was occurring on the periphery or

outside of the formal meetings. Often based around social interactions such as coffee breaks, lunch, dinners or breaks in discussion, considerable knowledge sharing was occurring. In fact Participant 3 suggested that conversations were going on outside the formal meeting and this was where a lot of the work gets done.

The literature supports this view of tacit knowledge sharing with Clarke (2010) suggesting it is linked to the Ba concept of ‘place’ where the tacit knowledge sharing occurs and the ‘originating’ which is the act of face to face interaction. Both of these concepts are rooted in the philosophical stance of Ba (Nishida 1958) and seen as two key areas that support the sharing of knowledge.

Participant 2 described the flexibility of the meeting itself that allowed for the CoP membership to move from informal to formal and back as required. Allowing the CoP to address practical and functional issues while supporting the experience sharing is considered important to its reason for being. It is important to realise this challenges Drucker’s (1993) idea that knowledge sharing has to occur by example or demonstration. It is however supported by SLT and its application to CoPs, as here learning occurs due to the interactions between people (Wenger 1991; Bandura 1997; Lave et al. 2002). However, many participants described tacit knowledge sharing occurring on the periphery, See figure 5, and this was often what fired their enthusiasm with some of these side discussions being described as the most important ones. Critically, many of these really important discussions occurring outside of the core return to the core for wider discussion, influencing the topic or objectives of the CoP.

139

Figure 5: Tacit knowledge sharing from the core to the periphery and back

The nature of tacit knowledge sharing in these CoPs described above in Figure 5 is also consistent with the literature particularly in relation to the socialisation or tacit to tacit sharing and its subsequent transfer to explicit using the methods described by the participants (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno 2000). What is being suggested is that despite Polanyi’s declaration that tacit knowledge cannot be codified these findings suggest that these CoPs through their virtuous circles (Figure 4) are both storing and evolving knowledge and in doing so are engaging in a form of codification.

5.4 Influences on tacit knowledge sharing

Having ascertained that tacit knowledge sharing was active within the CoPs the outputs to the sector were a new product made up of the combination of the original practice knowledge and the new knowledge gained from the tacit

experiences they shared on how they implemented that knowledge. The findings went on to indicate that a number of factors were impacting both negatively and positively on tacit knowledge sharing. Further, these factors often contributed to the reasons for tacit knowledge sharing and critically impacted on the movement of tacit sharing from the core to the periphery and back.

5.4.1 The role of the leader

The study suggests that a primary role for the leader is to ensure the CoP alignment with the topic and CoP membership’s key areas of interest as well as coordinating the meetings and opportunities to share (Wenger, McDermot & Snyder 2002). The CoP itself generates its leader through succession planning and a voting method and it can be that individuals with or without leadership development can occupy the role. This may be unique to sector based CoPs rather than organisational CoPs because of their membership not recognising organisational leadership. Further it democratically elects from the position of knowing the individuals and initially from those members who formed the CoP in the first instance. Recent CoP literature has suggested that these types of CoPs, ones that are made up of specialists with no prior history of each other, require the leader to adopt a co-ordination role and support the bringing together of the CoP and with the above alignment to the CoP interest (Smith & McKeen, 2004; Amin & Roberts 2007). This would appear to conform to the thinking proposed by Muller (2006) that the emergent leadership is due to greater activity and contribution in this type of CoP.

Participant 1 highlighted a key area of the study findings, that of the need to nurture the community and to encourage the weaker elements to contribute and participate (Fontaine, 2001). However, a significant point was made by a number of participants on the need for CoP leaders to manage those who might dominate the conversation as participation and contribution were highlighted earlier as key factors in ongoing CoP success. Critically the study found that the facilitation role is key and that the leader should encourage the participation of the weaker members. The view was that the leader needed to effectively channel the energy and enthusiasm of those more extrovert while bringing out the contribution from

141 the introverts. The more recent literature supports this view of ‘win – win’ leadership and the unsaid feature of diffusing potential conflicts (Garavan, Carberry & Murphy, 2007).

We can derive from the above that the leader in these CoPs has a complex role to play in co-ordination and facilitation. In doing so they also operate the more traditional leadership roles of creators and managers of the vision and the direction of travel. Emergent themes from these findings on CoP leadership, created from the number of references made to it by the participants, suggest that the group leader needs to manage dominant or destructive contributions. Further, the findings suggest the leader must be able to facilitate in the CoP to stop individuals overpowering the contribution of others and as suggested earlier support the win- win for every member. The leader is required to exploit the dynamics of the group and promote the good behaviours that support contribution while limiting the impact of those who for less than altruistic reasons seek to control the conversation (Yalom, 1983). To do this the leader requires an awareness of themselves and others that is closely linked to Goleman’s (1995) concept of Emotional Intelligence. Goleman (1995) asserts the concept of the leader being sufficiently aware of themselves and others. In applying this thinking to CoPs the group leader then should be able to recognise and manage the behaviours that may impact adversely on the CoP. The group leader must also be able to welcome new concepts borne out of the discussions on the periphery ensuring those tacit conversations of value are brought back into the core.

The findings though bring to light the notion of the leadership role being occupied by several members of the CoP who should play an active role in this facilitation. Their role is also one of brokerage helping the CoP share ideas from a membership that are drawn from wide ranging geographically dispersed institutions who may have a common IT language but a different organisational voice (Fontaine, 2001). These ‘brokers’ may also be playing a role in bringing the peripheral sharing back into the core having formed alliances around a new or innovative idea. This is a particularly interesting finding in that it suggests a number of the more active participants have a role to play in managing the culture of the CoP. In one

particular CoP, seen as one of the most successful, the culture is maintained through the changing leadership by key active members being retained or at the very least transitioning out and being replaced by ‘new blood’ at a careful pace. This culture was being sustained by the CoP and acted as a self-managing network in controlling the leadership to ensure the culture is maintained.