LITERATUUR KNOWLEDGE IN
ORGANISATIONS
Artikelen:
- Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: making sense of the curious concept of
knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies 38(7), 995-1018.
- Baralou, E. & Tsoukas, H. (2015). How is new organizational knowledge created in a virtual
context? Organization Studies, 36(5), 593-620.
- Bokeno, R.M. (2003). Introduction: Appraisals of organizational learning as emancipatory
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(6), 603-618.
- Carlile, P.R. & Rebentisch, E.S. (2003). Into the black box: the knowledge transformation cycle.
Management Science, 49(9), 1180-1195.
- Newman, N., & Newman, D. (2015). Learning and knowledge: a dream or nightmare for em-
ployees. The Learning Organization.
- Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unified model of dy-
namic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34.
- Pastuh, D., & Geppert, M. (2020). A “circuits of power”-based perspective on algorithmic man-
agement and labour in the gig economy. Industrielle Beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Arbeit, Or-
ganisation und Management, 27(2), 11-12.
- Schultze, U. & Stabell, C. (2004). Knowing What You Don’t Know? Discourses and Contradic-
tions in Knowledge Management Research, Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 549–573.
- Trusson, C.R., Doherty, N.F. & Hislop, D. (2014). Knowledge sharing using IT service manage-
ment tools: conflicting discourses and incompatible practices. Info Systems Journal, 24(4),
347-371.
- Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a con-
cept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198).
London: Springer.
- Fleming, P., Rhodes, C., & Yu, K. H. (2019). On why Uber has not taken over the world. Econ-
Omi and Society, 48(4), 488-509.
Boek:
- Hislop, D., Bosua, R. & Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organizations: a critical
introduction (fourth edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press; ISBN 978-0-19-872401-8
See page 10 -11 for how the book is built up.
1
,CHAPTER 1 THE CONTEMPORARY IMPORTANCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT
- Explosion of interest in knowledge management among business people began around mid 1990s
- Central idea -> it is important for organizations to manage their workforce’s knowledge
- Knowledge has become most important asset
- Nature of work has changed -> higher importance of intellectual work
- Effective management of knowledge can provide a source of competitive advantage
Bell: work in a post-industrial era is much more knowledge and information intensive than work in an industrial
era. Not only quantitative increase in the role and importance of knowledge and information, also a qualitative
change in the type of knowledge that is most important. In post-industrial society, theoretical knowledge has
become the most important.
- Theoretical knowledge represents abstract knowledge and principles, which can be codified, or at
least embedded in systems of rules and frameworks for action.
Post-industrial society = a society where the service sector is dominant and knowledge-based goods/services
have replaced industrial, manufactured goods as the main wealth generators.
- Unpleasant, repetitive jobs will decline in number significantly; social inequality will reduce; (all)
individuals will have increased amounts of disposable income to spend on personal services; society will be
able to better plan for itself; social relations will be less individualistic and provide greater scope for community
development and collective support.
Criticism
One of the main criticisms of the arguments made by knowledge society is that they typically conflate
(vermengen) knowledge work with service sector jobs. However, not all service sector work can be classified as
knowledge work. Some service sector work can (consultancy, research) but other types can’t (security,
cleaning).
Simultaneous to the growth in professional/managerial work, there has been a growth in low-skilled, service
work => growing polarization of the labour market between highly skilled, highly paid jobs. So there are 2
trends moving in opposite directions.
Questions have also been raised on the way knowledge is conceptualized (by Bell). Is it as codifiable and
objective as he states? Or is it more subjective, tacit etc.
Aims of this book
The framework that will be used is the one from Schultze and Stabell
which describes 4 discourses or perspectives on knowledge
management.
1st dimension = epistemology
- Objectivist perspective = epistemology of dualism
- Practice-based perspective = epistemology of duality
2nd dimension = social order
- Consensus -> existing social relations are regarded as unproblematic,
challenging them is not considered
- Dissensus -> existing social relations are problematic
Neo-functionalist discourse is most dominant in knowledge management literature. The book, however, also
discusses the other three discourses.
2
,PART 1 EPISTEMOLOGIES OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE
This part focuses on how knowledge is conceptualized in the knowledge management literature. Chapter 2
focuses on the objectivist perspective while chapter 3 focuses on the practice-based perspective.
Epistemology: addressing the nature of knowledge. Concerned with questions such as: is knowledge objective
and measurable? Can knowledge be acquired or is it experienced? What is regarded as valid knowledge?
CHAPTER 2 THE OBJECTIVIST PERSPECTIVE ON KNOWLEDGE (DUALISM, WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE ?)
Two foundational assumptions:
- organizational knowledge is objective in character (it is something people possess)
- such knowledge can be separated from people via codification into the form of an object/entity -> explicit
- related to a positivistic philosophy
4 main assumptions:
Knowledge is an entity/object that can be separated from those who possess it -> can be captured in
the form of documents, diagrams, computer systems etc.
Based on a positivistic philosophy: knowledge can be objective
Explicit knowledge (objective) privileged over tacit knowledge (subjective) -> tacit knowledge is seen
as less rigorous, very subjective etc. so tacit knowledge is not taken into account in the objectivist
perspective.
Knowledge is a cognitive entity -> it is something that is held in the head, development of knowledge
thus is primarily a cognitive process
Knowledge-based theory of the firm
This represents the dominant theory that adopts the objectivist perspective on knowledge. The knowledge-
based theory is a specific development of the RBV. The theory has two central tenets:
1. Knowledge that is difficult to replicate/copy can be a source of a competitive advantage for firms
2. Organizations provide a more effective mechanism than markets do for the sharing and integration of
knowledge between people
Typologies of knowledge
The distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge flows from an either/or logic of binary oppositions which
is a fundamental character of this perspective. Two of the most common distinctions made:
1. Tacit – explicit knowledge
Explicit knowledge is synonymous with objective knowledge. It stands above and separate from both individual
and social value systems. Tacit knowledge on the other hand represents knowledge that people possess and
which may shape how they think/act. It may be subconscious so it is hard to share.
Examples tacit knowledge: ability to swim or bike, ability of craftsperson to produce high quality products,
ability of an effective leader.
Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge
Inexpressible in a codifiable form Codifiable
Subjective Objective
Personal Impersonal
Context-specific Context-independent
Difficult to share Easy to share
3
, 2. Individual – collective knowledge
(Spender, 1996) Individual Social
Explicit Conscious Objectified
Tacit Automatic Collective
This table combines the explicit-tacit distinction with the individual-social distinction:
- Objectified knowledge represents explicit group knowledge. E.g., a documented system of rules,
operating procedures.
- Collective knowledge represents tacit group knowledge. Examples are routines and ways of working,
stories and shared systems of understanding. Collective knowledge can exist at micro level within
teams or at macro level -> entire organisation.
- At an individual level there is also the distinction between explicit and tacit -> conscious and
automatic
Focusing more explicitly on collective knowledge, Hecker (2012) made a distinction between 3 types:
1. Shared knowledge – knowledge held by individuals in a group like a set of rules and norms shared.
2. Complementary knowledge – knowledge regarding the division of expertise within a group, different people
have different expertise’s = interdependencies between individual knowledge.
3. Artifactual knowledge – knowledge embedded in collective, group artifacts. Examples are documentation
(shared presentation or database) or technological artifacts.
An objectivist perspective on the sharing and management of knowledge
Sharing
The sharing of knowledge represents what has been referred to as the conduit or transmitter/receiver model.
Independent sender -> separate receiver, via a specific transmission channel/mechanism. Assumed here is that
the sender is knowledgeable and willing to transfer knowledge, that an appropriate transmission channel is
used and that the receiver has the capacity to absorb and utilize the knowledge being transferred. (receiver’s
absorptive capacity).
Transferral of explicit knowledge is more straightforward
than that from tacit knowledge. That from tacit knowledge
is more difficult, time-consuming, complex.
Management
The typical starting point in objectivist conceptualizations of knowledge management is the processes of
codifying relevant knowledge, converting tacit to explicit knowledge (externalization). The difficulties of making
knowledge explicit are not taken into account in this view.
Knowledge management: objectivist perspective
1. Convert tacit to explicit knowledge (codification)
2. Collect knowledge in centralized repository -> database
3. Structure/systematize knowledge (into discrete categories) -> to make it accessible to others
ICT plays a key role -> can provide repository in which knowledge can be stored
Conclusion
- objectivist perspective = mainstream
- knowledge can take the form of a entity, separate from how people understand and use it
- tacit knowledge can be converted into explicit knowledge -> codification as much as possible, ICT important
4
