Social

andcultural
issues
related
tomanaging
andsharing
knowledge

^ ' ,^ i l e e n o r m o u sn u m b e r so f c o m p a n i e sh a v e i m p l e m e n t e dk n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n p
t rojects,
-.:ry of them have been eitherpartialsuccessesor outrightfailures.
Surveysconsistentlyreveal
:^al the main obstaclesto success in such initiativesare social and culturalfactors (Table4).
- ';rther conclusionthat could be inferredfrom these resultsis that the organizations surveyed
: : 1ot consistentlytake adequateaccountof these factorsin their effortsto managetheir knowl-
= : : e . T h u s ,f o r t h o s ec o n c e r n e dw i t h a c h i e v i n ga n i n t e l l e c t u auln d e r s t a n d i nogf t h e d y n a m i c so f
, - rwledge managementinitiatives,as well as those concernedwith makingspecific knowledge
-.:lagement projects
s u c c e s s f u la, p p r e c i a t i ntgh e s i g n i f i c a n c oe f s o c i a la n d c u l t u r afl a c t o r si s
, : a ' . T h e s i x c h a p t e r si n t h i s s e c t i o no f t h e b o o k a l l d e a l w i t h t h i s t o p i c a n d t h u s a r g u a b l y
-:cresent the core of the book.

3hapter4, the opening chapter in this part, has two broad objectives.First,it examinesthe
:-estion of why socialand culturalfactors are so important by consideringboth why human
-:tivation is essentialto the sharing,codification,or searchfor knowledge,and further,why it

- = ^ ' i b e t a k e nf o r g r a n t e dt h a t p e o p l ew i l l b e w i l l i n gt o a c t i v e l yp a r t i c i p a tien s u c hp r o c e s s e sT. h e

.::ond objectiveof this chapter is to providea brief overview of the diverse range of specific
'::iors that affect the
attitudesof workers to participatein knowledgemanagementinitiatives.
- - a p t e r 4 t h u s a c t s a s a s p r i n g b o a r idn t o t h e r e m a i n i n gc h a p t e r si n t h i s s e c t i o n( C h a p t e r 5
s-9),
' ,^ i c he a c hb u i l df r o m t h i s o v e r v i e w l,o o k i n gi n d e p t ha t a r a n g eo f s o c i a a l n d c u l t u r atlo p i c s .
3hapter 5 examines the dynamics of knowledge-relatedprocesseswithin communities of
:-acticeC
. h a p t e r6 b u i l d sf r o m t h i s b y e x a m i n i n gt h e d y n a m i c so f k n o w l e d g e - s h a r i ni nga t o t a l l y
r "erent context,where, unlikein communitiesof practice,peoplehave limitedcommon knowl-
: : g e a n d o n l y a w e a k s e n s e o f s h a r e di d e n t i t y T . h i s c a n i n c l u d ek n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e sw i t h i n
- , l t i d i s c i p l i n a r tye a m s ,o r k n o w l e d g ep r o c e s s e sw h i c h s p a nf u n c t i o n aol r o r g a n i z a t i o nbaol u n d -

: ' : s . C h a p t e r7 f o c u s e so n t h e t o p i c so f p o w e r a n d c o n f l i c t w
, h i c h ,a s w i l l b e s e e n ,a r e u n d e r -
-=searchedareasin the knowledgemanagementliterature.
ChapterB examinesthe impact and
 S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Table 4. obstaclesto the successof knowledgemanagementinitiatives

Author Survey details Surveyresults

R u g g l e (s1 9 9 8 ) 4 3 1 R e s p o n d e n itns U S A a n d . biggestproblemin managingknowledge

Europe.Conductedin 1997 'changingpeople's
(56%of
behaviour'
respondents)
. biggestimpedimentto knowledge
'culture'(54o/o
transferal of respondents)
Management 1 6 0 0R e s p o n d e n itnst h e U S A . Threemostcommonproblems:
Review(1999) Conducted1998/9 'gettingpeople
1. to seekbestpractice,
'measuring
2. results'
'gettingpeople
3. to sharetheirknowledge,
KPMG(2OOO) 423 largeorganizations Two most importantreasonsfor the
from USA,UK,France failureof knowledgemanagement
a n dG e r m a n y initiatives to meetexpectations:
1. 'lackof useruptakedue to insufflcient
communication' .20%oI respondents)
'everyday
2. use did not integrateinto
n o r m awl o r k i n gd a y '( 1 9 %o f
respondents)
P a u l e e an n d 46 respondentsin New Tealand The singlelargestbarrier(identified by
Mason(2002) f rom organizations
(publicand 45% oI respondents) to knowledge
private) management was culture.
Edwardset al 25 Academicsand ' P e o p l e ' a n'dC u l t u r e ' a r e
themost
(2003) practrtioners rmportantissuesorganizations should
involvedin KM field emphasize in their KM initiatives

roleof technologyin knowledgemanagementinitiatives.Finally,Chapterg

considersthe rolethat
culturemanagementand human resourcemanagementpracticescan have
on knowledgeman-
agementinitiatives,
and in shapingthe attitudesof workersto participatein knowreogeprocesses
more generaily.
ffiffi==+
'Why mYknowledge?'
I share
shoutd
whatmotivates to share
People
knowledge

lntroduction

..1:hetopicofknowledgemanagementhasmaturedandevolvedinterest.inhuman,
significantly. Thus, while the earliest literature
:.,,:ural, and social qu.stlon, has grown
.:dorganizationalattemptstomanageknowledge)typicallyassumedpeoplewould
.="riilingtosharetheirknowledge'andasaconsequenceneglectedtolookatfactors
-.--']tmayinfluenceknowledge-sharingattitudes,laterlitelatuleillustratedhow,people,.
This chapter provides an overview
:=-:ted factors are key to knowledge management. of
examining the interrelated questions
::-l an introduction to these issuesthrough
i1-,humanmotivationiskeytoknowledgemanagementinitiatives,andwhat
j.lolshavebeenfoundtoinfluencetheknowledge-sharingattitudesandbehavioursof
'', ,rkers.
of
two previous chapters on epistemotrogies
The issuesraised here connect to the
r : o r v l e d g e a s , c r u d e l y , t h e e a r l y k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t l i t e r a t u r eperspective
' w h i c h t y p ion
cally
,people,-relatedfactors,was firmly embeddedin the objectivist
.:glected
!:.owiedge,whilethegrowingrealizationoftheimportanceofsuchfactolsowesmuchto
.::sightsdevelopedfromapractice-basedperspective.Fundamentally,thisisbecauseits views
greater account of human agencyt and
: -,nceptualization of knowledge takes
personal'
r:-o\{ledgeasbeinglargelytacit and
T h i s c h a p t e r i s s t r u c t u r e d i n t o t h r e e m a i n s e c t i o n s . T h e f i r s'people'-related
t o u t l i n e s w h y t issues'
heearly
literature so conspicuously played down
jio\vledge management
.lesecondandthirdsectionsthenconsiderthequestionsofwhyhumanmotivationiS
, . : \ ' t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e d y n a m i c s o f k n o w l e d g e m a n a g e m e n t i n i tparticipating
i a t i v e s ' a n d winh a t
and organizational factols influence people,s attitudes to
_':rsonal
:.:ro1\4edge management initiatives'
S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

The'firstgeneration'knowledgemanagementtiterature:
the neglectof socio-cultural
factors

Storeyand Quintas suggestthat crucial to the successof knowledge managementinitiatives

is that'employeesarewilling to sharetheir knowledgeand expertise'(2001, 359). Today,such a
statement appearscommonsensical,a matter of stating the obvious. This is largely because
such an assertioncan be backedby a wide range of suwey flndings (seeTable 1; Cranfleld
BusinessSchool 1998; Hauschild et al.2001; Ribiere zo0r), and.casestudy evidenceon
knowledge management initiatives (see, Empson 2001; Flood et al. 2001; Kim and
Mauborgne1998;Morris 2001;Robertsonand o'Malley Hammersley2000).Theserepofts
show that human, social,and cultural factors are $.pically key determinants of the success
or failure of knowledgemanagementinitiatives, for example,with evidencesuggestingthat
a reluctanceby workers to share,or even hoard their knowledge is not uncommon.
However,the importance of such issueshas not alwaysbeen recognizedin the knowl-
edgemanagementliterature.In much of the earliestwriting on knowledgemanagement,
what Scarbroughand Carter(2000)referto asthe'first generation'literature(very approx-
imately all knowledge management literature before 1998), socio-culturalfactors were
not accordedthis level of importance.Thus before looking in detail at why human and
social factors are so important it is worth briefly looking at this early literature to help in
understandingthe assumptionsit wasbasedon and why'people, questionswereregarded
as of secondaryimportance.
A good insight into the characterand assumptionsof the earlyknowledgemanagement
literaturecan be derivedfrom a surveyof it (Scarbroughet a\.1999;Scarbroughand Swan
2001)' Literatureup to and including 1998was included in the survey,and was classified
accordingto its primary thematic interests(seeTable4.1).This showedthat almost 70 per
cent of this literaturewas primarily focusedon IT or information-systems-related issues,
and that only 5 per cent (one in twenty articles)had a thematic emphasison ,human
resource'issues. Thus it is in no way inaccurateto suggestthat this earlyliteraturefocused
primarily on technological issues, and neglected socio-cultural factors. The survey
evidencereportedearlier(seeTable2) indicatesthat the earliestknowledgemanagement
initiatives had a similar emphasis.

T a b l e4 . 1 . T h e m a t i cf o c u so f e a r l yk n o w l e d g em a n a g e m e n t
literature(adaptedf rom Scarbroughand Swan 20U,fable 2, B)

Thematic category Number %

InformationTechnology 73 40
Information
Systems 51 28
StrategicManagement 35 19
HumanResource 9 5
Consultancies B 4
Other B 4
 , W H Y S H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? ' E
were typically
Thls literature, and the earliest knowledge management initiatives,
rasedon a number of key assumptions:

' Peoplewill be willing to shareknowledge'

. Knowledge is either codified, or is codifiable (tacit knowledge can be converted into an
expiicit form).
. Knowledge can be sharedvia IT systems.
perspective on
The resonance between these assumptions and the obiectivist
be apparent, and the vast maiodty of this early,
inowledge outlined in chapter 2 should
perspective' As a
,T-basedliterature is fundamentally based on this epistemological
(and KM initiatives) was
.onsequenceof theseassumptionsthe emphasisof this literature
to suppolt
:,n setting up mechanisms and a relevant (technological) infrastructule
and electronic knowledge diffusion'
.nowledge management efforts of codification,
,luestions of whether people were willing to share their knowledge, or what could be
assumptions
tone to motivate them to do so, were by and large ignored. But these
evidence and have been widely challenged as a
iave been undermined by empirical
:rrnselluence.

People'smotivation and willingnessto share knowledge

questions'
- he title of this section contains the seedsof two important and interrelated
."";hichover time gained greatel and greater prominence in the knowledge management
-rlerature:

-. \vhat is the role and significance of human motivation in knowledge-sharing

processes?
l. How willing are people to sharetheir knowledge?
answel to the fiISt
The growing critique of the flrst-generation literatule suggeststhat in
knowledge-sharing
llestion, human motivation is of fundamental importance to
to the second question, people'swillingness to sharetheir
::ocesses,and that in answer
conclusionscan be understood by look-
i.rowledgeshould nofbe taken for granted.These
in turn.
-::g at three specific issues(seeTable4.2), each of which are examined

makinghumanmotivation
Table4.2. Factors to
important
knowledge
organizational processes

Why human motivation and willingnessare important to

knowledgemanagementand sharingprocesses

natureof (much)knowledge
Embodied/personal/tacit
Natureof the employmentrelationship
of (potential
Embeddedness relations
for)conflictin intra-organizational
SOCIAL
A N D C U L T U R AI L
SSUES

The personal and embodied nature of knowledge

The first factor which helps to explain why human agency and motivation is important
to knowledge-sharingprocesses relatesto the characterof organizationalknowledge.As
the previoustwo chaptershave examinedthis topic in detail,relevantissuescan be exam-
ined without having to restatea lot of detail.The characteristicsof knowledgeconsidered
relevant here are drawn largely from the practice-basedperspective on knowledge (see
Chapter 3). This is because,in general terms, the critique of the objectivist-orientated
'first generation'knowledgemanagementliteraturehasbeen made using insights derived
from this perspective.
Primarily much organizational knowledge, rather than being explicit in a disembodied
form, is personal, tacit, and embodied in people. Thus, Kim and Mauborgne suggest,
'knowledgeis a resourcelocked in the human mind' (1998,323). As a consequence,the
sharing and transmission of such knowiedge occursthrough interaction and communica-
tion between people. Thus, the sharing and communication of knowledge requires a
willingnesson the part of those who have it to participatein such processes. Or, asFlood
et al. (2001, 1153) suggest,'the tacit knowledge. . . employeespossessmay be exploited
only if theseworkersdecideto part with this knowledgeon a voluntary basis.'
Furtheq challenging the tacit-explicit dichotomy of discreteknowledge tlpes aswell as
acknowledging the socially and contextually embedded nature of knowledge, suggests
there are limits to the extent to which knowledge can be made explicit. Thus no matter
how willing workers may be to make their knowledge explicit, they will never be able to
make explicit al1the assumptionsand values on which it is based(often becausethey may
not even be aware of all of them). For example, an experiencedworker who has built up
his knowledge over time will only be partly able to explicitly articulate his knowledge.
Further, other workers attempting to fully understand this knowledge will tlpically
require to directly communicate and interact with the experiencedworker to help under-
stand aspectsof the knowledge that could not be made explicit. Finally, and crucially, the
successof this processof knowledge-sharing,is dependent on the willingness of both
workers making the effort to actively engagein this process.
Thus, as much organizational knowledge is embodied and personal in nature, and
where there are finite limits to the extent to which this knowledge can be codifled, the
importance of the active agency of people in knowledge-sharing becomes apparent.
However, the character of knowledge provides only part of the explanation why human
and socialissuesare key to knowledgemanagementinitiatives. Two other issuesof equal
impofiance are the nature of the employment relationship, and the natule of intra-
organizational relations. Theseissueshelp to explain why Scarbroughand Carter (2000)
suggestthat it is problematic to assumethat organizations represent a harmonious
environment where people are willing and happy to sharetheir knowledge.

The nature of the employment relationship

The quotations at the start of Chapter 1 (p.1) portray knowledge as an economic asset
which is owned by organizations, and which they have the power to manage. However,
the knowledge that workers have can also be conceptualized asbelonging to them rather
 , W H YS H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? '

:ran the organization. From this perspective,while workers may apply, develop, and
:se their knowledge towards the achievementof organizationally directed goalsand objec-
:tr-es,the knowledge is fundamentally the workers, to use as, when, where, how, and
:f they want. This highlights the potential tension between workers and the organizations
:hey work for over who owns and controls their knowledge, and points towards an
,mpoftant factor which may inhibit the willingnessof workersto sharetheir knowledge.
Ihis tension is neatly summed up by Scarbrough,who suggeststhat,'knowing as afi
:ctive, lived experienceis in a constant state of tension with knowledge as a commodity
-.t-ithinfirms and markets'(-1.999,6,emphasisin original).
Thus while the knowledge-relatedobjectives of the organization (to utilize and develop
-<nowledge into an economic asset,and to extract economic value from it), and workers
:o sustain,develop,use, and apply their knowledgeas appropdate,to derive a senseof
:npoftance from their knowledge, and to have a knowledge basewhich enhancesor sus-
-ains their employability) may coincide, it is equally possible that they may not.
Itierefore, from a managerialperspective,the willingnessof workersto use their knowl-
-dge for the achievementof organizationalobiectivesshould not be taken for granted.
Suchtensionsare not new or novel. In fact they representone of the most fundamen-
:al conflicts affecting management-workerrelations.Thus, for example one of the fun-
:amental aims of Taylorism was to dispossesscraft workers of their knowledge, and
=rnbodyit in a systemof explicit managerialprinciples (Jaffee2001).

Tensionsover the ownership of knowledge

'.':rris (200'1
) examined a knowledge codificationproject undertaken by a management
-: rsultancy.He foundthe codificationprojectwas significantlydependenton the consultantstaking
-- activeand willingpart in the codificationprocess.Morrissuggeststhat this projectrepresented
'property
'- attempt by the companyto assert its rights'over the knowledgeof its workers, to
ownershipover it. In this case the workers were willing to
=::ablisha sense of organizational
projectto havesig-
::ricipate in the project,but this was becausethey consideredthe codification
- 'cant limitations.Ultimatelythe workers perceivedthat any attempt to codify their knowledge

in the projectwhile simultaneously

,'.:s likelyto be partialandthat they couldthus participate retain-
-; key aspectsof their knowledgethat sustainedtheir power and importancein the organization.

' :re workershadperceived that it may havebeenpossiblefor the organization

to codifysignificant
.- I importantelementsof theirknowledge,wouldtheirattitudeto participatingin the projecthave
:=en different?

The negative effect that conflict in the employment relationship may have on workers
,titudes to knowledge-relatedactivitiestakeson addedimportancewhen recentchanges
t:r the nature of the emplo).rnent relationship are taken account of. Since approximately
:re mid-1970sthere hasbeen a massiveupheavalboth in the structuringof organizations
 A N D C U L T U R Ai S
SOCIAL L SUES

(withashiftawayfromhierarchical,bureaucraticstnrctureston'aldsmoreflexiblest-.u.
tures)andinthenatureoftheemploymentrelationship.Ingeneraltermsrr-orkersar*
requiredtobemoreflexibleinthehourstheyworkandtaskstheydo,whiiesimulta:re-
and with fewer internal promotion oppo|!..:i
ou,ty emptoy*ent has become lessSecute,
ities(the,NewDeal,Capellilggg)'somecommentatorsarguethatthishaswitnessedthe
,conttact culture, (Guest 1998), where workers have a limited levels oi con.
rise of a
m i t m e n t a n d l o y a l t y t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e y w o r k f o r ( s e e f o r e x a m p l e , Gpotenn'a:
allieeti
This thereforesuggeststhat the
2001; Scase2001; smithson u.rJ Lewis lggg).3 r'r-orkers
and their employersover how the
for conflict betweenthe objectivesof the workers
knowledge is utlilized may be significant'

Arefactorssuchasjobsecurityandpromotionopportunities|ikelytoaffectaworkers|evelof
to shareor codifytheirknowledge?
commitment,or willingness
organizational

for conflict
lntra-organizationalrelations:the potential

Whj}eissuesotpowetandconflictarelookedatmolefullyinChapterT,theyrequireto
b e t o u c h e d o n h e r e , a s o n e w a y t h a t t h e y g e t ' p l a y e d o u t ' i s t h r o u g h a t t i t u dof
estoknowl-
primarily, the actual or perceived differences interest
"[];;;;;;'""0-."iro*tion. mav affect attitudesto
affa.f 2ftitlrdes to
;.ffi.;,J;;;";;;;;r.ups in knowledgemanagementproiects i . + 1 " o ff,nal
conflicris ttre
^.^d:^+ rnel

;::ffi#i" 1"." nr""i"cts.Therefore,intergroup,or interpersona\ - l ^ - ^ L - n r m l o d o e

knowledge
i;.;;;il;"r.a *"ri" explainwhy the wlringnessof workers share
to
"elps
\ial\sps\bn\\ss\e\scsss\dq(\cknowledgetnanagementpfoiects'
of where organizational
The contemporary knowledge literature is full of examples
Hayesand walsham (2000)
conflicts have affectedattitudesto knowledge-sharing.Both
workersover the visibility of
and ciborra and Patriotta (1998)illustratehow concelnsby
affected their attitudes
what they said and did in electronic knowledge exchange forums
toparticipation.Further,Newelletal'(2000)andEmpson(2001)illustratedhowinter-
knowledge-sharing'
group conflicts and rivalries created a reluctance for intergroup
conc€rnsabout ,giving away,
Further,Willman et al. (2001)and Morris (2001)show how
projects'Suchacts,
specialistknowledgeshapedattitudestowardsknowledgecodiflcation
power, which are all the more
as will be discussedin chapter 7, representexpressionsof
significantiftheknowledgeinquestionisscarceorregardedasvaluable.

or Intergroup
wheretherewas interpersonal'
can you thinkof an examplef rom your own experience
and of
utilization some what
knowledge? was the basisof the
conflictwlth regardsto the sharing
conflict?

3 There is an extensive debate in the human resource management literature over this topic,
believe in high commitment
particularly over questions such as the degreeto which managements
loyalty that wolkers have for theil olSanizations'
management practices,and the level of
 , W H YS H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? '

:{ayes and Walsham (2000) also show how the 'politicality' of the social context (such
:s :o whom knowledge/informationis visible, and real, potential, or perceivedsanctions
:: - m knowledge-sharingbehaviours) can vary significantly and affect knowledge-sharing
.=tudes and behaviours.They also acknowledgedthat the potential for surveillanceand
:: rnitoring of such behaviours was greater in electronic forums, where a permanent
'=cord of contributions and interactions was available.Theseissuesare discussedmore
.;--r-in Chapters7 and 8.
-hus the potentially conflictual nature of organizational life combined with the fact
:-:t knowledgerepresentsan important power resourcemeansthat it may not necessar-
-'.-'oestraightforwardto get peopleto sharetheir knowledgewith colleagues.

What motivates peopleto share/hoardtheir knowledge?

" :r previous section looked in detail at the question of u/h/ it is important to take account
, : ruman attitudes to knowledge-sharing,which touched on how the social and cultural
- :ltext in which knowledge management initiatives occur shapestheir dynamicS.This
::ds to questions of what specific aspectsof the social and cultural context influences
:e.rple'sattitudesto knowledge-sharing.An enormousnumber of surveysand casestud-
.r of knowledge management initiatives have now been conducted, which have shed
,::t on this question.In broad terms a wide rangeof extremelydiversefactorshave been
-:':nd to be relevant (Table 4.3). The managerial implications from these insights,
r,ir-ussedmore fully in the following five chapters, are as profound as they are straight-
-:rrard: the successof knowledge management initiatives is crucially affectedby the
,,.--:aland cultural context, and as a consequencethese issuesrequire to be properly
:::ounted for in the planning and implementation of knowledge managementinitiat-
::s. Ignoring them thus has potentially negative implications for the likely successof
.::r-initiative, as countlessanalysesillustrate (seeTable4.3). The rest of this sectionpro-
-.:es a brief overview of how each of these factors can affect knowledge-sharing attitudes
behaviours,and points towardssubsequentchapterswhere theseissuesareexamined
":-d
:":,re fully.
.

ilrrter-groupand inter-personalconflict
-.' ,tutlined above, the potential for conflicting interests in organizations is an important
-::tor that can significantly influence the attitudes of workersto sharetheir knowledge.
:-r importance of knowledge as a signiflcant power resourceamplifies the potential for
- - rflict that exists (Storey and Barnett 2000). Such conflicts can be over a wide range of
':ues (historical antagonisms and rivalries, concerns over reward and recognition,
::rmotion opportunities, disputesover the legitimacy of knowledge claims, concerns
-.'tr changes in status, and attempts to control knowledge management initiatives).
-::e dynamicsof intra- and inter-group-knowledge-sharing processes are examinedmore
-:-lv in Chapters 5 and 6, while issuesof power, politics, and conflict are examined in
-laDter 7.
S O C I A LA N D C U L T U R A LI S S U E S

Table 4.3. Factorsaffectingpeople'swillingnessto share knowledge

Factors affecting people's Casestudy examples

willingness to share knowledge

Intergroup/Personal
Conflict De Long& Fahey2000;Empson200'l;
Newellet al.2000;Storey& Barnett2000;
Ward 2O0O
Concernsoverwhetherstatus/expertise Morris2001;Willmane7al.2001;Andrews&
affected Delahaye2001
Senseof equity/fairness
in organizational K i m& M a u b o r g n1e9 9 8
processes
Interpersonal
trust Andrews& Delahaye 2001;Monis & Empson
1998; Roberts2000
Organizational
commitment? Storey& Ouintas2001;Guest& Patch2000;
Byrne2001
Generalorganizational
culture De Long& Fahey2000;McDermott&
O'Dell2001; Pan& Scarbrough
1999;
Ribiere200i; Robertson
& O'MalleyHammersley
2000;Robertson & Swan2003
(reward/recognition)
HRM Practices B e a u m o n&t H u n t e r2 0 0 2 ;H a n s e ne t a l .1 9 9 9 ;
Hunteret al.2002;Jarvenpaa & Staples2000;
Robertson & O'MalleyHammersley 2000;Swart&
Kinnie2003
Visibility
of knowledge,attitudes,andvalues Ciborraand Patriotta1998;Hayes&
to seniorlevelof organizational
hierarchy Walsham2000

Empson (2001) provides a vivid example of such a conflict, and how it impacted on
knowledge-sharing processes.She studied attempts to integrate the knowledge basesof
companies following mergers and acquisitions (in accounting and consultancy compa-
nies). This study found wide-ranging resistanceto the knowledge sharing/integration
processbetween staff from the consulting companiesbeing merged,basedon perceived
differences in the quality and character of their knowledge bases(such as the degreeof
tacitness),conflicting images of the companiesbeing merged/ and fears related to the
potential negativeconsequences from participating in the process.

Equity and fairness

Kim and Mauborgne(1998),basedon a study of seniormanagersfrom a small number of

case-studyorganizations, suggestthat the willingness of workers to sharetheir knowledge
can be related to whether they perceiveda senseof'proceduraljustice'to exist in their
organization. Procedural justice representsthe extent to which organizational decision-
making processesare fair, with fairnessbeing related to how much people are involved in
decision-making, the clarity of communication regarding why decisionsare made, aswell
as a clarity of expectations.They suggestthat when all these factors are in place workers
 ,WHY
S H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? ' r
--l feelvaluedfor their intellectualcapabilitiesand skills.Kim and Mauborgnearguethat
---iking workers feel valued can impact on attitudes
towards knowledge-sharing,'when
- ::r' felt that their ideas and person were recognized
through fair process,they were
-,ling to sharetheir knowledge and give their all' (1998,332). Conversely,they argue
-"-;t rvhen workers do not believe proceduraljustice
exists,workers are likely to hoard
'--=trknowledge,and be lesswilling to participate
in team-basedcooperativework. This
;dv suggeststhat organizationscan significantly influence such attitudes through the
,r' they manage their decision-makingprocesses.The way in which organizational
, --ture, and the useof specifichuman resourcemanagementpoliciescan affect attitudes
' *nowledge-sharingare exploredin Chapter
9.

- -. 'evelof equitydo workers

expectf rom the organizations
they work in?Forexample,with
: l:-ls to involvement in decision-making,
what type of decisions,
andwhat levelsof involvement
do
- ' . : ' s r e q a r da s f a i r ?

nterpersonaltrust
-
.-.re is currently an enormousinterest,and quantity of writing on the topic trust, with
-- :;h of the contemporary literature
considering how trust underpins effective group
:king, and interpersonal interaction (Jarvenpaaand Leidner 1999; Maznevski and
:-;doba 2000; Meyersonet al. 1996;Nandhakumar 1999;Newell and Swan 2000).The
--cial role of trust in facilitating knowledge-relatedprocesses
is also being recognized
.-:rdrewsand Delahaye20Ol;Davenportand Prusak1998;Mclnerney and LeFevre2000;
: rerts 2000).Fundamentally,a lack of trust betweenindividuals is likely to inhibit the
: , :int to which people arewilling to shareknowledgewith each other. This is becausea
::i of trust createsuncertainty and risk (or the perceptionof a risk) that all partiesmay
- : participate, or beneflt equally, and
that due to opportunistic behaviour, someonemay
i= out from sharingtheir knowledge(for example,by getting nothing in return).
l-.r example, Andrews and Delahaye (2000) in a study of attitudes to knowledge-
'..ing by scientistsfound that perceptions
of trustworthinesswere crucially important
'. 'raplng who the scientistsexaminedwerewilling
to sharetheir knowledgewith. They
: '.jde a quotation from one of their intervieweeswho illustratedthis by saying,

' , r haven'tgottrustandconfidence thenit doesn'tmatterwhatelseyou'veput in place,or what

"
::.:: strucfures
you put in placeto try andencouragecooperation,it'snot goingto happen'(804).

!,'l
E-:
r.u.,
-
-s:referstothebeliefpeoplehaveaboutthelikelybehaviourofothers,andtheassumptionthatthey
^cnour (notacting
theirobligations opportunistically).
A trusting
relationship
isbased
onan
- *:;ctation
ofreciprocity
ormutualbenefit.
 A N D C U L T U R AI L
SOCIAL SSUES

The issue of trust highlights how the character of interpersonal relations crucially
affects knowledge-sharing attitudes and behaviours. From a managerial point of view,
sensitivity to the character of existing social relations, combined with attempting to
facilitate trust-based relations may have a crucial impact on knowledge management
initiatives. Finally, an issue explored further in Chapter 8 is how social relations and
the development and maintenance of trust are affected when they are electronically
mediated, through information and communication technologies.

Levelof organizationalcommitment

A number of articles suggestthat the level of commitment workers feel for the organiza-
tions they work in may affect both their knowledge sharing attitudes and behaviours as
well astheir level of loyalty (Byrne 2001; Guest and Patch 2000; Storeyand Quintas 2001;
Scarbrough and Carter 2000). While there is some empirical evidence that shows that
loyatty levels are affected by organizational commitment (Buck and Watson 2O02;Chen
and Francesco2000; Sturgesand Guest2001),there is no empiricalevidencewhich shows
how knowledge-sharingattitudes and behavioursare connectedto commitment levels.
Thus, the relationship between knowledge-sharing attitudes and organizational commit-
ment is, at this point in time, somewhattheoreticaland tentative.
Organizational commitment also connects with the issue trust. The degree to which
the trust placed in organizationsby their workersis fulfilled representsone of the main
factors underpinning their level of organizationai commitment (Guest and Conway
1999)The topic of organizationalcommitment will be revisitedin Chapter9, whereit will
be seen that developing commitment can be seen as part of an organization's knowl-
edge management strategy as it can prevent the loss of valuable knowledge through
increasingstaff retention levels.

Thesense thatpeople
attachment
ofemotional theyworkfor,whichmaybe
feeltotheorganizations
andcommon
invaluealignment
reflected goals.

Human resourcemanagementand culture managementpractices

An extensive amount of the knowledge management literature has shown how the cul-
ture of an organization, as well as the human resourcemanagement practices it utilizes
(such as systemsof pay and recognition, training, character of working conditions) can
crucially impact on knowledge management initiatives (Hansen et aI. 1999; Hislop 1999;
Hunter and Beaumont2OO2;McDermott and O'Dell 2001; Pan and Scarbrough1999;
Robertson and O'Malley Hammersley 2000). Two impacts these factors have is that not
only can they affect the attitudes and behaviour of workers to knowledge management
initiatives, but they can also affect staff retention levels.Theseissuesare illustrated in the
example below and are examined more fully in Chapter 9'
 ,WHY
S H O U L DI S H A R E I \ 4 YK N O W L E D G E ? '

The role of culture management and HRM policies in facilitating

knowledge-sharing

: : c e r t s o na n dO ' M a l l eH
y a m m e r s l e( 2y 0 0 0c)o n s i d e r ehdo wt h eH R Ma n dc u l t u r e
management
: - ' : t i c e so f E x p e rC t o n s u l t i nags, p e c i a l i Us tKc o n s u l t i ncgo m p a n ys,h a p e tdh ea t t i t u d eosf t h e i r
- : ^ s u l t a n ttso s h a r et h e i rk n o w l e d g T e .h es t u d yf o u n dt h a tE x p e rCt o n s u l t i nugs e da w i d er a n g e
- ' - l R M p r a c t i c etso a c h i e v et h i s ,i n c l u d i nrge c r u i t m e natn d s e l e c t i o (nw h e r ew o r k e r sw e r e
- - : s e n f o r h o ww e l lt h e yf i t t e dw i t h t h e k n o w l e d g e - s h a rciunlgt u r e t)r; a i n i nagn dd e v e l o p m e n t
',^ereworkershada lot of autonomyto decideon theirown training anddevelopment require-
-:'rts);
lob design(wherethe workerswere grantedsignificant autonomyover how they
: - k e d )a; n dt h e d e v e l o p m e o n ft a c u l t u r eo f i n f o r m a l i a
t yn do p e n n e stso k n o w l e d g e - s h a r i n g .
--:
s t u d yc o n c l u d et d h a tE x p e rC t o n s u l t i nwga ss u c c e s s f iunl i t se n d e a v o u rwsh, i c hw a sv i s i b l e
-':n thefactthatnotonlywereitsworkers
willingto proactively sharetheirknowledge, butthat
:: ' e t e n t i o n
r a t e sw e r es i g n i fc a n t l hy i g h etrh a nt h e i n d u s t rayv e r a g e .

Concernsover the visibility of interactions

---rthHayesand Walsham (2000)and Ciborra and Patriotta (1998)showedhow concern

:"' rvotkersover the visibility of their opinions to senior management inhibited their
rrrticipation in electronicknowledgeexchangeforums. Theseconcernswere related to
-tiv this information/knowledge might be used,or interpretedby senior managers.For
=rample,ciborra and Patriotta (1998,50) showedthat in one of the groupwaresystems
.:ev studied contribution levels changed dramatically following comments put on the
:-.'stemby a 'very senior manager'.Their research showed that '[t]his ,intrusion,.. .
::ovoked a panic reaction amongst employeesand contributed to a freezein the use of
::e systemfor some months.' Primarily in both studies,workers were loath to express
:inions which might be seenasnot complying with managerialperspectivesin forums
r';hich were transparentand widely used.This theme connectscloselywith the issueof
- tn-er,which is exploredmore fully in Chapter 7.

-: 'v typicalarethe f indingsof HayesandWalsham,and Ciborraand Patrlotta? lf workersareawaTe

--i: theirknowledgeandvalues
will be visibleto seniormanagement,
arethey likelyto censor,or
* : Cifyhow they act,andwhat they say?

Concernsabout power/status/expertise

- he flnal issueconsideredin this chapter which has been found to influence people's
-.nowledge-sharing attitudesand behaviouris the extent to which people'spower, status,
:nd expertise is affected, or the extent to which they perceiveit will be affected, by
tarticipating in knowledge-sharingprocesses. Theseperceptionsand concernscan have
 SOCIAL
A N DC U L T U R AI LS S U E S

positive or negative effects on knowledge-sharing behaviour, dependent upon how

workers perceivetheir power, status, and expertisewill be affected. On the positive side,
the Morris example outlined earlier in the chapter (seep. 47) showed how consultants
had a positive attitude to an organizational knowledge codification project, as they
perceivedthat participating in the project would not jeopardizecrucial elementsof their
specialist knowledge and expertise, and the status and power which they derived from
having it. willman et al. (2001) outline a more negative example, where traders in
London's financial markets occasionally refrained from codifying elements of their tacit
knowledge, due to the financial benefits, and statusthey believed they could derive from
personally retaining, or 'hoarding' it. This issue connects closely to the topic of trust
discussedabove, as the degreeof trust people have in their colleaguesand employers will
affect the risks and rewards they perceive to exist from participating in knowledge
managementinitiatives.
Theseanxieties highlight a dilemma for workers related to participating in knowledge
management initiatives: whether to shareor hoard knowledge. Sharingknowledge has the
potential benefits of improving a person's status as well as creating opportunities for
the development of new knowledge, but has the risk that it involves workers ,giving away,
the sourceof their expertise,status, and power. However, the opposite strategy of hoard-
ing has its own risks and advantages.The advantageof hoarding is that it may protect an
individual's expertise,but runs the risk of the importance of their knowledge not being
recognizedand rewarded.Theseissueswill be exploredmore fullv in chaoter 7.

Conclusion

The chapter has outlined the limitations of the first-generation knowledge management
literature, which so conspicuously played down socio-cultural issues.The critique of this
perspective has revealed the substantial limitations of much of this earlv literature, and
has shown that:

1. Human, social, and cultural factors are fundamental to understanding both the
attitudes of workers to knowledge management initiatives and the dynamics of
knowledgemanagementprocesses.
2' It is problematic to assume that people will be willing to actively participate in
knowledge management initiatives.

Theseconclusions stem from three factors. Firstly, that much organizational knowledge
is personal and embodied,requiring the willingness of its possessorfor it to be shared,
codified, etc. Secondly,the nature of the employment relationship means that in relation
to knowledge management initiatives the interests of workers, and their employers may
not alwaysbe compatible. Finally, the typically conflictual nature of intra-organizational
relations means that control over knowledge and knowledge management initiatives in
organizations are likely to be contested. The chapter also illustrated the wide range of
specific factors which can influence people'swillingness to share knowledge.
 ,WHY
S H O U L DI S H A R EM Y K N O W L E D G E ? '
E
Finally,the most important managerialimplication flowing from the issues
addressed
-:: this chapterare that attention requiresto be paid to the characterof
the socio-cultural
: --'ntext,and that a lack of sensitivity to it is likely to jeopardizethe success
of any knowl-
. :re managementinitiative.

nrvrew-rau.s$i$:g$1ffi,",r,
+i!fi,rffr:iiuiltti.iiil
I 3ased on your own experience,what has been the attitudesof work colleagues
to shalng
:^eir knowledge?Haveyou found them to be willingto share,or has hoarding
been more
:,'oical?what are the most importantfactorswhich explainthis behaviour?
2 -ow compatiblehaveyour and your employingorganlzation's interestsbeen with regardto
-ow you have
used your knowledge?Havethe organization,s goalsand your own always
:een harmonious,or havethere been any conflictand tensionsover
how vou use vour
<rowledge?
I -ave you found trust
to be an importantfactor underpinningatt;tudesto knowledge-sharing?
-ave you had any experiences
where a Iackof trust has lnhibitedknowledge-sharing,
or
,',,here
the existenceof trust has facilitatedit?

rur t r r*:R$4jqJ$ilfii;,1ij:
' - Storey,and E. Barnett(2000).'KnowledgeManagementInitiatives:
Learning
from Failure,,
- ournalof Knowledge Management,412:14b_56.
Sasestudy of a failed knowtedge managementinitiative, which reveals
theinternat potitics and
:cnflrcts that can affect knowledge managementinitiatives.
n - Scarbroush(1999).'Knowledgeas Work:Conflictsin the Management
of Knowtedge
workers,,
=:hnologyAnolysis
ond Strategic
Manogement,
11lj:5_16.
icnsiders the r'ssuesand dilemmas involvedin organEatrcnsattempting to motivate
knowledge
.','orkersto share their knowledge
o - Hunter,P Beaumont,and M. Lee (2002).'Knowledge
Managementpracticein ScottishLaw
= rms' HumonResource j212.4_21.
, MancsgementJournol,
)'esents case study evidence
of the type of knowtedge management strategiesutitizedby some
Scottish Law firms, and considersthe impricationsfor the HRM function.
r - Empson(2001).'Fearof Exploitation and Fearof Contamination:
-'ansfer lmpedimentsto Knowledge
in Mergersbetweenprofessional ServiceFirms,,HumanRelotions,5417:83g_62.
)etailed case study examiningreluctanceof workers to share knowledge with
'cllowing new correagues
a merger.