KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL COHESION

ABSTRACT
The inherent difficulties associated with transferring tacit knowledge in todays complex knowledge-based economy have revived the view that the transfer of this knowledge is a process that requires a large emphasis on human interactions. Although multi-faceted, the whole field of knowledge management (KM) can be said to have emerged as an act of brain storming to address the challenges facing contemporary, knowledge-driven organizations. KMs biggest task is to restore the poor structure of organizations, which are built on command and control mechanisms. This 19th century structure was developed to deal with land, labour and capital but not with knowledge, which is still thought to be an attribute of owners and managers. To deal with this issue, a large part of the literature within KM is concerned with the conditions under which social capital and communities of practice can thrive. This paper seeks to compare and contrast these two intertwined foundational aspects of KM and discuss their importance in the transfer of tacit knowledge. While illustrating the underpinnings of each concept, and examining briefly their pros and cons, the intention is to identify some organizational disorders and propose some useful countermeasures in order to overcome some of the challenges facing organizations today. WHAT IS SOCIAL CAPITAL? Although there is no undisputed definition of the term social capital or (SC) as it will be referred to, there is a consensus that it is about the value of social networks. According to (Woolcock, 1998: 155) 1 SC is a broad term encompassing the norms and networks facilitating collective action for mutual benefit. SCs first coinage goes back to (Hanifan 1916) but it is usually accredited to Bourdieu (1985) and Coleman (1988) whose definitions are similar in the sense that capital is seen as embedded in the individual's social relationships and environment. Both have an instrumental approach to SC as they view it as a means that enables the individual to achieve certain goals.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical. synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society. 2 Fountain, J. E. (1998). Social capital: Its relationship to innovation in science and technology. Science & Public Policy, 25(2),

After the collapse of the post-war Fordist model of capitalism and the adoption of the concept by the World Bank as a policy variable, the focus has turned once again to SC. This time with an institutional tone that articulates the value and ability of social structures to shape organizational performance and influence knowledge processes. This form of capital, (Fountain 1998: 104)2 argues, is the "stock" that is created when not only members of an organization, but also when a group of organizations develop the ability to work together for mutually productive gains. Furthermore, Fountain argues that the ability to work together requires a social glue a means for social cohesion (p32) that holds organizations together.

PROs AND CONs OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

In terms of its benefits to the transfer of tacit knowledge, SC increases the efficiency of information dissemination by minimizing redundant and unnecessary information. Efficiency, though, relies largely on a common understanding between actors of networks. For (Nahapiete & Ghoshal 1998) this means that organizations with high SC are better able to maintain a high degree of efficiency due to SCs support of knowledge sharing and learning by encouraging cooperation. According (Nielsen 2003: 2)3, SCs benefits can be summarized in the following: trust lowers transaction costs; networks provide channels of information; and norms of reciprocity make voluntary collective action possible and less costly. Similarly, (Cohen & Prusak 2001) argue that SC leads to increased exchange of knowledge on the grounds of shared values and goals, at the same time it lowers transaction costs due to increased trust. Although SC is a good feature of organizations, certain forms can benefit some applications while they can harm others. For instance, strong SC, with good standards and common identity within an organization, can result in what (Cohen & Prusak 2001) call collective blindness. The latter is one of the challenges facing organizations today that limits openness to new information and alternative ways of acquiring knowledge. Trust is also an important aspect of CS. It is a long-term investment that can be developed over time through repeated interactions between members of organizations. Nonetheless, trust is also a major challenge in the face of organizations when exploited by network actors to advance in the hierarchy.

2 Fountain, J. E. (1998). Social capital: Its relationship to innovation in science and technology. Science & Public Policy, 25(2), 103-107. 3 Nielsen, K Social Capital and Innovation Policy (research paper, 2003)

MAKING THE MOST OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

To illustrate the overall importance of SC to organizations, we should consider some of the threats that can hinder SC to thrive and there are two. (Prusak & Cohen, 2001: 87)4 identify volatility and virtuality as the main drivers of SC. By volatility Prusak means the indication that the environment within the organization is becoming increasingly turbulent. This is due to the speed in production of new technologies, which requires instant organizational response. This, in turn, causes continuous and sudden changes in the structure of organizations. Virtuality, on the other hand, is more concerned with the way ICT technologies have changed work patterns. Work has transcended the concepts of time and space as technology today enables work in many different ways, places and times. Volatility and virtuality are very beneficial to organizations. In fact many business models are built around these two concepts, but they are not defect free. They can have negative effects on the development of social capital, as they undermine the existence of long-term relationships. In sum, SC can provide greater knowledge, which in turn can result in innovation. But to do so SC implies trust, reciprocity, shared values, networks and other factors that strengthen this social capital. These factors can create a value where information processing and the development of new knowledge can be within reach. But whereas organizations maybe aware that innovation is the result of different processes, it must be acknowledged that these processes consist of social interactions and exchanges of knowledge between different actors. It must also be acknowledged that innovation is not just a combination of concrete forms of capital, such as physical or financial capitals, but also the inclusion of abstract forms of capital and SC in particular.

COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
The literature on KM suggests a strong link between SC and communities of practice or (COPs) as they will be referred to here. (McElroy, 2002)5 defines social capital as; a collection of independent learners and communities of practice who collaborate with one

Cohen, Don & Prusak, Laurence (2001) In good company - How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Harvard business school press, Boston, Massachusetts.
5

McElroy, Mark W. (2002) Social Innovation Capital Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol.3 no.1

another in self-organizing ways to develop and integrate shared knowledge. According to (Hislop, 2005: 60/ 61)6, the concept of COPs has its roots in the organizational learning literature. It is a learning theory with tight links to the social construction of knowledge. Learning, within this context, comes from the social process of becoming a practitioner, as the individual is given a social context through participation in an integrated community. According to (Hislop 2003) the notion of SC is based on two central points: the activity-based
nature of knowledge (practice) and the group-based character of organizational activities (communities). A summary of the key characteristics that underpin COPs is as follows:

Learning is a social phenomenon that allows participants in a community to possess and develop a stock of common shared knowledge. Knowledge is integrated into the culture where participants develop shared identities, values, jargons and stories. LLP or Legitimate peripheral participation where learning and community membership are inseparable (Lave & Wenger 1991). Learning by doing and therefore knowledge and practice are inseparable (Cook and Brown 1999).

PROs AND CONs OF COPs

Members of COPs can benefit a great deal from sharing and creating new knowledge as they open new opportunities to either enhance productivity in a workplace or learn how to change a light bulb at home. If members of COPs are passionate, self-driven about the task in hand, this community is most likely to succeed and flourish. But like all human institutions, communities of practice, also have a downside. They can hoard knowledge, limit innovation, and hold others hostage to their expertise (Wenger et al 2001, 139)7. Therefore, developing the ability to spot community disorders is a useful lens for ensuring healthy communities of practice. CULTIVATING COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE The governing law of COPs is that they develop in an organic fashion, which is not easily amenable to deliberate top down control. (Hislop 2005) reports on (Baumard 1999) that COPs are autonomous, self-managing systems, which can exist and flourish without the need for any senior management support. Furthermore, Hislop argues that any explicit managerial attempt to control COPs may therefore conflict with a community's system of selfmanagement. The risk, in attempting to do so is that such attempts may have adverse effects
Hislop, D., 2005, Knowledge Management in organisations a critical introduction, Oxford University Press, Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002): Cultivating Communities of Practice, Boston, MASS, Harvard Business School Press
7 6

on the community, and the very knowledge processes that such efforts are intended to support and develop (Hislop, 2005: 65/66)8. What determines the success or failure of COPs is a level of informality and autonomy. Despite the fact that COPs develop organically, a well-structured stewardship can deliver success within organizations. Cultivating Communities of Practice is an effort born of experience to show that organizations need to cultivate communities of practice actively and systematically. Wenger et al argue that the health of COPs depends a great deal on the voluntary engagement of their members and on the emergence of internal leadership. Moreover, the ability to steward knowledge as a living process depends on some level of informality and autonomy (Wenger et al, 2001: 12)9. For an organization to fully leverage its knowledge, the communities that steward knowledge and the business processes where knowledge is applied must be tightly interwoven creating what (Bogenrieder & van Baalen, 2007)10 call double-knit organizations. The main driver of this kind of organizations is a situational form of learning. This in turn, implies the use of (Hislop 2003: 166) multipleinclusion to explain why and how multi-membership can hold up knowledge sharing between groups. CONCLUSION So far, it has been shown that social capital and communities of practice are interwoven concepts that shape the structures of organizations and help them to either flourish or perish. It has also been identified that the failure of SC within organizations has much to do with the lack of trust between actors. Cultivating communities of practice has been suggested, alongside double-knit and situational learning, as mechanisms to address some of the challenges facing organizations today namely, volatility, virtuality and collective blindness.

Hislop, D., 2005, Knowledge Management in organisations a critical introduction, Oxford University Press, Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002): Cultivating Communities of Practice, Boston, MASS, Harvard Business School Press 10 Bogenrieder, I and Baalen, P.V. (2007): Contested practice: multiple inclusion in double- knit organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management
9

References
1- Bourdieu,P. 1985.The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.),Handbookof theory and research for the sociology of education: 241-258.New York:Greenwood. 2- Bogenrieder, I and Baalen, P.V. (2007): Contested practice: multiple inclusion in double- knit organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management 3- Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Supplement): S95-S120. 4- Cohen, Don & Prusak, Laurence (2001) In good company - How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Harvard business school press, Boston, Massachusetts. 5- Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community centre. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67 , 130-138. 6- Hislop, D., (2005) Knowledge Management in organisations a critical introduction Oxford University Press, 7- Hislop, D (2003) "Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda", Employee Relations, Vol. 25 Iss: 2, pp.182 - 202 8- Fountain, J. E. (1998). Social capital: Its relationship to innovation in science and technology. Science & Public Policy, 25(2), 103-107. 9- Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10- McElroy, M. W. (2002) Social Innovation Capital Journal of Intellectual Capital, vol.3 no.1 9 Nielsen, K Social Capital and Innovation Policy (research paper, 2003) 11- Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical. synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society. 12- Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W. M. (2002): Cultivating Communities of Practice, Boston, MASS, Harvard Business School Press