Journal of Library Administration

ISSN: 0193-0826 (Print) 1540-3564 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjla20

Knowledge Management, Diversity, and

Professional Hierarchies in Libraries

Sarah Vela (PhD Student)

To cite this article: Sarah Vela (PhD Student) (2018) Knowledge Management, Diversity, and
Professional Hierarchies in Libraries, Journal of Library Administration, 58:8, 835-860, DOI:
10.1080/01930826.2018.1516950

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1516950

Published online: 22 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 56

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjla20
Journal of Library Administration, 58: 835–860, 2018
Published with license by Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 0193-0826 print / 1540-3564 online
DOI: 10.1080/01930826.2018.1516950

Knowledge Management, Diversity, and

Professional Hierarchies in Libraries

SARAH VELA
PhD Student, School of Information Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

ABSTRACT. The structure and culture of libraries present

distinct challenges for promoting knowledge sharing among
staff. Existing knowledge management literature is largely
focused on for-profit businesses, overlooking issues found in
public institutions. This article summarizes some key
organizational culture theories and related obstacles to
successful knowledge management and highlights how the
departmental design and staffing of many libraries inadvertently
reinforces these problems. The concerns discussed include
insufficient diversity in decision making, the stratification of
knowledge along professional lines, and entrenched personal
and group identities. Some practical solutions are offered, along
with suggestions for future areas of research.

KEYWORDS tacit knowledge, innovation, communities of

practice, librarians, library technicians, education

The effective management of knowledge is essential to the success of

modern organizations, enabling them to improve their processes and
develop new products and services. While a substantial body of research
has been produced on the topic, this work has overwhelmingly focused
on for-profit businesses and thus assumes particular criteria of human
resource operations, external competitors, and organizational motivations
(Ancori, Bureth, & Cohendet, 2000; Johannessen, Olaisen, & Olsen, 2001;
Wiig, 1997) that are not applicable to public institutions such as libraries.
This is not to say that no inquiries into the public sector exist – studies

ß The Author(s)
Address correspondence to Sarah Vela, PhD Student, School of Information
Management, Dalhousie University, Kenneth C. Rowe Management Building, 6100 University
Avenue, Suite 4010, P.O. Box 15000, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada. E-mail: svela@dal.ca

835
836 S. Vela

have been published in areas including scientific research (Collins, 2001a;

Wylie, 2003), government (Kim, 2005; Wiig, 2002), medical professions
(Cimino, 1999; G€ oksel & Aydıntan, 2017; Patel, Arocha, & Kaufman, 1999),
law and justice (Marchant & Robinson, 1999; Spaeth, 1999; Taylor et al.,
2013), and education (Carroll et al., 2003; Chugh, 2015; Minstrell, 1999;
Rowley, 2000; Somech & Bogler, 1999; Torff, 1999), among others – but a
survey of the knowledge management (KM) corpus found that only 8% of
the article were focused on not-for-profit organizations (Mehziri &
Bontis, 2009).
For libraries, in particular, this has left some significant holes in the
scholarship that exists. There are publications examining specific issues
such as knowledge sharing with external partners (Francis & Wingrove,
2017; Hummelen & Scholte, 2004), the use of KM toolsets (Ralph &
Tijerino, 2009), staff development programs (Leong, 2014), and legacy
planning efforts (Wijetunge, 2012), but there is nothing that looks at KM
efforts in libraries holistically and considers how the structure of these
institutions supports or prevents effective knowledge transfer.
This article will highlight how the organizational structure and culture
of libraries, particularly, the division of labor and the professional designa-
tions of staff, create opportunities and challenges for promoting
knowledge creation and sharing. The first section provides explanations of
“knowledge” and “knowledge management” to clarify how the terms will
be used throughout the remainder of the discussion. The next will
summarize a few management theories that propose organizational design
archetypes and outline the implications of each for KM efforts. The con-
cluding section will then explain how common staffing and management
practices in libraries affect how well knowledge is shared. This overview
will highlight areas for future research while providing libraries and the
librarian profession with some points of consideration if they want to
improve KM in their institutions.

KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

There is no simple or uncontroversial way to explain knowledge. The

extensive debate has been produced on the topic, with disagreements
over so many aspects that there are now a dozen distinct models using
overlapping but differently-defined terminology, resulting in more
confusion than clarity (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001; Mooradian, 2005). It is
not the goal of this article to provide a summary of these many
models or to attempt to coalesce them; several such publications
already exists (Gourlay, 2006a; McAdam, Mason, & McCrory, 2007;
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 837

Oguz & Sengun, 2011; Venkitachalam & Busch, 2012), and the focus of
the discussion presented here is on organizational management, not epis-
temology. It is important, however, that there is a clear understanding of
how knowledge has been conceived in the arguments that follow, and so,
at the risk of adding to an already crowded dispute, this section will out-
line the model of knowledge adopted by the author.
Most modern knowledge management theory is derived from the
work of scientist and philosopher Polanyi (1967), who proposed that there
are two levels of knowledge: explicit and tacit. The explicit kind is what
the term “knowledge” typically brings to mind – comprehension associ-
ated with education and intellect so that a person who can recite a lot of
trivia on a topic or can describe how something works might be called
knowledgeable. Tacit knowledge is somewhat more abstract and less
obvious, making it easier to explain with illustrations than descriptions.
To understand tacit knowledge, consider the quintessential example of
knowing how to ride a bike. The process of learning to ride clearly
involves figuring out how to maintain balance while moving forward and
turning, and so the ability to ride a bike must mean that a person has this
knowledge, but if they were asked to explain to someone else how to
remain balanced while riding they would be unable to provide useful
instruction (Tsoukas, 2003). This ability – knowing how to interpret and
respond to changes in a bike’s orientation in order to keep it upright – is
what can be referred to as tacit knowledge. Inherent in this example are
many distinguishing traits: tacit knowledge is something that must be
learned by doing (rather than through reading or instruction); once
gained, it is very difficult to express the knowledge in words at all and
impossible to do so without a loss of meaning; although a person may not
be consciously aware that the knowledge exists and that they are using it,
it is nonetheless essential to successfully perform an action. While exam-
ples of physical ability are the easiest to conceptualize, tacit knowledge is
equally involved in mental functions such as recognizing a face or solving
mathematical problems and in social cues like reading emotions (Polanyi,
1967). More technical examinations of tacit knowledge and its properties
can be found in the work of Gourlay (2006a) and Stenmark (2000), but
this simplified explanation should be sufficient for the discussion
presented here.
Once it is established that multiple levels of knowledge exist, it is
important to consider how these levels relate to one another – specifically,
can explicit knowledge be converted into tacit knowledge or vice versa?
Though there are some researchers who maintain that the two are
completely distinct and no conversion can occur (Gourlay, 2006b;
Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Tsoukas, 2003), the majority of scholarship
presents knowledge as a continuum of the degree of tacitness (stretching
838 S. Vela

from fully explicit at one end to fully tacit at the other, with one or more
blended stages in the middle), along which, a particular unit of knowledge
can move in accordance with a set of rules that differ from model to
model (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001; Ancori, Bureth, & Cohendet, 2000;
Mu~ noz, Mosey, & Binks, 2015; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka & von
Krogh, 2009).
The existence of a continuum can be inferred from the learning patterns
of practical tasks. A person who starts a new job that involves a lot of tech-
nical rules might be provided with a training manual of guidelines; at first
they will likely have to refer to this documentation frequently but over time
will memorize parts of it (explicit knowledge), and eventually, through per-
forming similar actions enough times, it will become second nature to the
point where they are no longer consciously aware of the rules. They just
apply them automatically when making decisions (tacit knowledge). Eraut
(2000) calls this process “routinization”, whereby practice and repetition
allow someone to “ … reach the stage where the aid of a person or checklist
is no longer required and then to progress to a future stage where an inter-
nalized explicit description of the procedure also becomes redundant and
eventually falls into disuse” (p. 123). Knowledge that starts as explicit can
thus become more tacit over time, demonstrating that there is a continuum.
Going in the other direction, if the same person was then asked to
update the training documentation, they would need to transform the tacit
knowledge back into explicit knowledge so that it could be written down.
This is not a simple matter of reversing the process; as something becomes
routine, the tacit knowledge that a person develops may enable them to dis-
cover shortcuts or intuit additional rules, so that their behavior slowly devi-
ates from the original documentation (Hildreth & Kimble, 2002), and it no
longer encapsulates their total knowledge. Beyond the challenge of just
determining what these differences are, explaining the additions in words
can prove very difficult. The more tacit the knowledge becomes, the less
conscious the person will be of it, and the less suitable for expression it is.
Research has shown that conversion in this direction is mediated by meta-
phor, analogy, and the use of narrative or storytelling (Linde, 2001; Nonaka,
1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Wijetunge, 2012). So, to explain a new
rule, the person might recount a story of when it was needed and how it
was used, either recording the tale directly or using it as a prompt to help
articulate considerations of note. Importantly, this method does not enable
the knowledge to remain intact; parts of it will be lost as it becomes explicit,
with greater losses occurring further along the tacitness continuum it travels
and there is a point beyond which so much meaning will be lost that it is
essentially non-articulable (Mu~noz et al., 2015; Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009).
A summary of these points is presented in Figure 1. Borrowing the ter-
minology used by Mu~ noz et al. (2015), which balances brevity and clarity
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 839

FIGURE 1 Levels and conversion patterns of knowledge.

compared to other models, the knowledge continuum is partitioned into

three sections: explicit, where understanding is still easy to express with
minimal loss of meaning; unspecified tacit, where expression is difficult
and needs to be prompted, but is still possible; and unspecifiable tacit,
where the knowledge has become so ingrained that it can no longer be
expressed. Knowledge might originate at any point along this continuum,
depending on what it is and how it is learned (i.e., through experience or
through study), but it can become more tacit through internalization or
routinization and up to a certain point can be made more explicit with the
mediation of analogy or narrative.
It is notable that the model as presented draws a very clear distinction
between explicit knowledge and information. Some researchers conflate
these two concepts, naming “ … financial reports, market research, and
other types of studies” (Mu~noz et al., 2015, p. 291) as being explicit know-
ledge, or implying that explicit knowledge is stored in databases and other
technology (Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Treating
explicit knowledge as synonymous with information obscures important
considerations of what changes or is lost when information is interpreted
or knowledge is codified. The process of perception and interpretation
involves making sense of information by using one’s preexisting know-
ledge and because that knowledge base will differ from person to person,
a group of people confronted with the same information will each form a
different understanding of it (Ancori et al., 2000; Starks, 2013). As already
discussed, meanwhile, the expression of knowledge will always result in
loss of meaning and thus, the information produced by codifying know-
ledge is not equivalent to the knowledge itself. This article will, therefore,
not use these terms interchangeably, but will use the division suggested
by Hildreth and Kimble (2002) that “once explicit knowledge has been
840 S. Vela

committed to the article, (or any other medium) it becomes information”

(p. 13).
There is also some clarification to be made about the definition of
knowledge management (KM) as used in this article. This is another area
where there is little agreement in the literature about what activities KM
entails or where the focus should be. Mehziri and Bontis (2009) conducted
a systematic review of the field and found that most theories could be
grouped into three clusters: the socialization school (45% of the corpus),
which focuses on altering human-resource practices and organizational
structure to influence the sharing and use of knowledge; the codification
school (25%), which deals with capturing and storing knowledge; and the
collaboration school (21%), which promotes the sharing specifically of
explicit knowledge as encouraged through the implementation
of technology.
As discussed above, the author does not consider knowledge to be
interchangeable with information, so places the codification school of
research in the realm of information management (IM) rather than KM
(Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Wiig, 2002). For the collaboration school, mean-
while, there have been numerous arguments against focusing on technol-
ogy rather than people (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001; Hildreth & Kimble,
2002; Linde, 2001; McAdam et al., 2007; Mooradian, 2005; Starks, 2013;
Stenmark, 2000; Wiig, de Hoog, & van der Spek, 1997; Zarraga &
Bonache, 2005), and an emphasis on explicit knowledge at the expense of
tacit is not compatible with the model of knowledge presented above.
The term knowledge management will thus be used in this context along
the lines of the socialization school of research, with particular acknow-
ledgement to the definition provided by Choo (n.d.) that KM is “ … about
creating the conditions and developing the tools and practices that enable
people and groups in organizations to more effectively share, create,
access, and retain knowledge” (n.p.), with the caveat that those tools
should support communication, not codification (Wipawayangkool &
Teng, 2016).
The four processes listed in Choo’s (n.d.) definition – sharing, creating,
accessing, and retaining – can be understood as follows. Creating know-
ledge means rationalizing new information to make sense of it and then
incorporating it into one’s existing knowledge base. This can simply mean
learning but is often meant to be synonymous with innovation, implying
that the new knowledge offers radical insight into a problem or otherwise
drives understanding forward. Such innovative knowledge creation is the
result of a person inferring connections between ideas, problems, etc., as
new explicit or tacit knowledge intermixes with their existing explicit or
tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Accessing knowledge is
about determining who in the organization knows what, so they can be
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 841

contacted when their expertise is relevant for a project or decision (Choo,

1998; Joia & Lemos, 2010; Leong, 2014; Stenmark, 2000). Retaining know-
ledge means ensuring that it is not lost to the organization, as, for
example, if the only person who understands a particular process leaves.
Sharing knowledge concerns transferring one person’s understanding to
others with as little lost meaning as possible. This final process is key to
supporting the other three: as knowledge is shared with another the
recipient is creating their own knowledge and this distribution increases
the number of people who can be approached for access and decreases
the likelihood that the knowledge will not be retained. While all of these
processes are important and interconnected, this discussion will refer
mainly to knowledge creation and sharing, with the understanding that
improved access and retention are natural by-products of enhancing these
considerations.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES AND MANAGEMENT APPROACHES

The way that an organization is structured and run is a significant factor in

how successful the implementation of a KM program will be. This section
will briefly summarize four theories of organizational culture and manage-
ment models that either promote or stifle knowledge creation and sharing.
The intention is not to vet or rank these theories, but instead to demon-
strate that there is a consistent design to the models that support KM and
that this is generally not the design that libraries have adopted.
First is the “knowledge-creating company” proposed by Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995), building on Nonaka’s (1991/2007; 1994) earlier work.
The core of this theory is a model that suggests that new and innovative
knowledge is the result of interactions between explicit and tacit know-
ledge, as facilitated by four processes: socialization, externalization, com-
bination, and internalization (SECI) (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). Socialization is how tacit knowledge is shared as people work in
the same environment and share experiences. Externalization enables the
conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge via metaphor or
modeling so that it can be documented. The combination is about mixing
different pieces of explicit knowledge to deduce new connections and
correlations. It should be noted that because Nonaka’s (Nonaka & Konno,
1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) body of research does not draw a distinc-
tion between explicit knowledge and information, the combination is
described as an external and technology-mediated process. Internalization,
finally, involves converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
through “learning by doing” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 69), similar to
842 S. Vela

routinization as described above. These processes are meant to occur in

cyclical sequence, involving a larger swath of people in each rotation so
that as new knowledge is developed, it spreads from individuals to groups
to the whole organization in a so-called “knowledge spiral”.
The SECI model has been very widely adopted in KM research, though
it is not without detractors (Gourlay, 2006b; Mooradian, 2005; Ray &
Clegg, 2007). For the purpose of this discussion, however, the point of
interest is not the model itself – it is the proposed management structure
that encourages SECI processes to occur. The theorized structure defines
roles and responsibilities for three tiers of staff: leaders, middle manage-
ment, and frontline staff (Nonaka, 1994; 2009; Nonaka, von Krogh, &
Voelpel, 2006; Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Organizational leaders and top management are meant to focus on vision
and communicating “what ought to be” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995,
p. 129) to middle managers. Frontline staff should be charged with collect-
ing as much information as possible from their vantage point of working
directly with customers, technology, vendors, etc., and feeding this data to
their supervisors in middle management. The role of these middle manag-
ers is to reconcile the vision of their superiors with the current state of
affairs and to generate and implement new knowledge (processes, prod-
ucts, services, etc.) to move the organization in the desired direction.
There is also an emphasis on cross-functional coordination, where com-
mittees and project teams, headed by middle managers, meet and share
knowledge from their department or group. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
refer to this structure as a “hypertext organization”, named for the way
web pages and similar documents are interconnected via hyperlinks. The
result is an organization with a large middle-management level where the
drive for change comes from committees.
This design likely sounds very familiar to anyone who works in a large
organization, particularly one in the public sector. The similarity to existing
company designs perhaps explains the popularity of the model – no need
to reorganize, just focus on nurturing SECI knowledge spirals and innova-
tive ideas will flow. As Ray and Clegg (2007) discuss at length, however,
there are vital cultural differences between employees in the Japanese
context (from which Nonaka was writing) and those in North American
businesses and these distinctions may prevent this model from being
effectively implemented. To simplify their argument, in Japan there is a
great degree of company loyalty and a willingness among staff to do what
is best for the organization, with little concern for how their own standing
might be affected. In North America, however, values of “liberal individu-
alism” and labor mobility mean that staff are more likely to “ … make
rational decisions to maximize their wealth or personal happiness … ”
(Ray & Clegg, 2007, p. 176) even if it is to the detriment of the company.
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 843

In practical terms, this means that employees, recognizing the value of

their knowledge, “ … may be reluctant to share as it impacts their status,
esteem, and power … ” ( Chugh, 2015, p. 132; see also Joia & Lemos,
2010). This effect amplifies the more divided an organization is, as studies
in social identity theory have shown that while people may be willing to
share openly with members of their own group, they are much warier of
including other teams, departments, etc. (Oztok, 2013; Stahl, M€akel€a,
Zander, & Maznevski, 2010). In total, Nonaka’s knowledge-creating com-
pany theory is not necessarily the ideal model to promote KM in a North
American setting.
To determine what type of culture might be more effective, consider
the other models that have been proposed. Alvesson and Karreman (2001)
suggested that management styles can be divided into two “modes of
intervention”: coordination, where managers set out the minimum expect-
ations but allow employees a lot of independence; and control, where
managers specify tasks and closely monitor and evaluate employees’
work. The authors pair this with a division of whether KM efforts focus on
people or technology (what they call social and technostructural mediums
of interaction, respectively) to create a matrix of four approaches. The
“extended libraries” approach (coordination/technostructural) provides a
suite of tools and encourages staff to externalize their knowledge, how-
ever, they see fit. A centralized group is then designated to process and
organize the resulting information so that it can be used by the company.
The “enacted blueprints” approach (control/technostructural) is similarly
focused on codification, but dictates very specific toolsets and formats to
be used. The “normative control” approach (control/social) attempts to
engender a particular culture among a workforce, in the hope that “people
may be persuaded to define themselves in terms of the same social iden-
tity, thereby downplaying boundaries within the organization and being
more prepared to co-operate and assist” (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001, p.
1006). The key here is to prevent employees from identifying more with
their department than with the company as a whole, which becomes
increasingly difficult the larger the organization is. Finally, the
“community” approach (coordination/social) emphasizes tacit knowledge
transfer through worker interaction and assigns management of the tasks
of “ … coping with diversity and of encouraging knowledge sharing
through influencing workplace climate” (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001,
p. 1005).
Which of these approaches is preferable depends on the goals of a
KM program and the ability of an organization to change. If the intention
is to promote innovative ideas and problem solving, then the preferred
approach would be a community. The management styles that rely on
control “ … will drive out requisites for knowledge creation and
844 S. Vela

consequently hamper rather than facilitate knowledge creation” (Alvesson

& Karreman, 2001, p. 1013), while those that rely on technology put too
much emphasis on explicit knowledge (Stenmark, 2000), neglecting the
underlying tacit levels, when both types are needed to gain new insight
(Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). The implications of adopting a community
approach, however, are significant. In contrast to Nonaka’s model, the
importance of middle management is greatly diminished, since, as
Alvesson and Karreman (2001) explain, when working with tacit know-
ledge there is “ … a downplaying of the role and options of management
in terms of its ability to interfere with knowledge beyond creating good
preconditions … ” (p. 1012). Leaning into a coordination style would also
mean doing away with standard operating procedures or regimented proc-
esses, instead of allowing staff to discover new methods as long as the
intended endpoint (service delivery, product design, etc.) is reached.
While this sort of freedom may be conceivable for the upper tiers of the
organization, can the same be said for frontline clerks and entry-
level staff?
A similar breakdown of organizational culture is presented by
Cameron and Quinn (1999) in their “competing values framework”. This
model includes a matrix of cultures divided in one dimension based on
whether the environment is flexible or favors stability and control, and on
the other based on whether the focus is internal and encourages integra-
tion between departments or external and seeks differentiation from the
competition. The resulting quadrants are labeled as follows: “clan culture”
(flexible/internal), which emphasizes reciprocal commitment between
employees and the organization so that it is like a family; “adhocracy
culture” (flexible/external), which promotes entrepreneurial endeavors
among employees and risk-taking among leadership; “market culture”
(control/external), which engenders competition among staff in the pursuit
of advantage over other companies; and “hierarchy culture” (control/
internal), which implements standard procedures and keeps work tasks
divided into “ … vertical (position) and horizontal (work units) silos oper-
ating relatively in isolation” (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011, p. 467). As with
many models, most organizations do not fall purely into any one of these
quadrants (“mixed cultures”), but one type tends to be predominant.
A study by Suppiah and Sandhu (2011) of how these different cultures
affected the success of KM efforts in large (100þ staff members) organiza-
tions found again that more controlled environments had a negative effect
on innovation and tacit knowledge sharing. They note that in a market
culture specifically, internal competition means that “knowledge becomes
a proxy for power … ” (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011, p. 467) making staff far
less likely to share, while in a hierarchy culture, the degree of division
between people and units acts as a barrier to knowledge transfer.
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 845

They found that organizations that had predominantly clan cultures were
far more likely to exhibit knowledge-sharing behavior and speculated that
the same was true for adhocracies, though they were unable to observe
enough large organizations with this type of culture to confirm
their hypothesis.
In a review of the cultural trends of various industries, Cameron and
Quinn (1999) found that public institutions overwhelmingly fall into the hier-
archy type, with adhocracies being the least prominent. For libraries specific-
ally, this is corroborated by Maloney, Antelman, Arlitsch, and Butler’s (2010)
study, which found that hierarchy cultures are the predominant current state
of management in these institutions. This is not terribly surprising, as the
“stability and predictability” (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011, p. 467) that a hier-
archy culture provides tends to be what is expected of public organizations,
libraries included, but it is not a design that is associated with innovation or
widespread knowledge sharing. Interestingly, Shepstone and Currie (2008)
study of the academic library at the University of Saskatchewan found that it
had a market culture, likely in response to the priorities and attitude of the
university as a whole, reinforcing that the atmosphere of the larger institu-
tion will impact the culture of each department.
The final model to be examined is that suggested by Lam (2000, 2002),
which again divides cultures into a matrix based on the “knowledge agent”
(whether control resides the individual or the organization), and on the
degree of “standardization of knowledge and work”, high or low. The first
of the resulting quadrants is called “machine bureaucracy” (organization/high
standardization), which is characterized by “ … the standardization of work
process, a sharp division of labor and close supervision” (Lam, 2000, p. 495).
Knowledge creators in this culture are the managers, while frontline workers
are meant to follow their instructions. Next is the “J-form organization” quad-
rant (organization/low standardization), named for the Japanese style of the
company it resembles. These are essentially the design described by Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995), as discussed above; shared values and a focus on the
good of the organization guide cross-functional project teams that develop
new knowledge and disperse it to the rest of the organization. Third is an
“operating adhocracy” (individual/low standardization), where the workforce
consists of people with varied knowledge and expertise who are given a
high degree of autonomy, and who collaborate through informal temporary
teams rather than specific management line structures. Lastly, a “professional
bureaucracy” (individual/high standardization) hires staff who are highly
trained in a specific discipline that gives them innate “ … internal work rules,
job boundaries and status” (Lam, 2000, p. 494). Though the employees are
given a great degree of autonomy by the organization, their shared preexist-
ing training in standards as gained through professional certification pro-
grams provides consistent direction to their activities.
846 S. Vela

Each of the organizational forms presented by Lam (2000) has its own
challenges and drawbacks for effective KM. In a machine bureaucracy,
knowledge is fragmented, and only those at the top have a view into
everything, meaning if top management does not have the time or inclin-
ation to create innovative solutions, it does not occur. As Lam (2000) puts
it, “it is a structure designed to deal with routine problems but is unable to
cope with the novelty of change” (p. 496). A J-form organization “ … has a
unique capability to generate innovation continuously and incrementally”
(Lam, 2000, p. 498), but (in addition to the North American cultural issues
discussed above) its reliance on tradition and stability prevents radical
innovation. In a professional bureaucracy, the independence of staff and
“ … formal demarcation of job boundaries … ” (Lam, 2000, p. 495) prevent
knowledge sharing, particularly between those with different professional
backgrounds or between professionals and “non-experts”. An operating
adhocracy, finally, is best for producing innovative thinking, but the tem-
porary nature of work groups may prevent dispersal of new knowledge
across the organization, particularly if it has a high turnover of staff.
Combining the messages from all of these models, there is a fairly con-
sistent picture of which organizational cultures or management styles will
promote KM processes and which will hinder them. Placing too many
controls on the work of staff will stifle creativity and innovation; there
must be freedom to try different approaches and find new solutions.
Socialization-collaborative interaction between individuals – is the key to
knowledge sharing (Ancori et al., 2000; Choo, 1998; Joia & Lemos, 2010;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) and will be most effective if participants disre-
gard divisions based on hierarchy, department, education, or any other
factors. It is also important to engender commitment to the organization as
a whole, not to a particular group or department and to assure staff that
sharing knowledge will not result in a loss of status or power.
These factors provide a strong indication of why innovation is usually
the forte of small startup companies and not large corporations or public
institutions. Operational complexity grows with business size, and dividing
functions into departments is a rational way to distribute the workload,
but can easily result in silos that keep knowledge local and promote loy-
alty to the unit over the whole. Developing a hierarchy of roles helps
manage staff and resources and introduces a line of progression that can
help encourage employee retention, but it also creates status divisions and
results in competition for advancement, encouraging hoarding of know-
ledge to gain power. While it might be desirable to redesign an organiza-
tion and create a new, more innovation-friendly culture, it is questionable
how much the structure of large, established institutions can reasonably
be changed. The stability of controlled procedures may be bad for know-
ledge sharing, but it is good for the consistent delivery of services, even if
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 847

that delivery or those services have room for improvement. In public insti-
tutions particularly, there is limited leeway for radical change. A non-
unionized for-profit business might risk lawsuits or public relations issues,
but can undergo a massive restructuring if desired; an organization where
workers’ roles and job security are protected by collective bargaining or
by law is far less able to implement significant redesigns, especially if the
new design would strip people of responsibilities or a hierarchical status.
This is not to suggest that improvement to KM activities is impossible,
but that reasonable expectations must be set about what would need to
change and how difficult that might be. It is not the sort of transformation
that can be accomplished through a project or working group; fundamen-
tal cultural changes require prolonged and consistent effort at all levels of
the organization. With this in mind, the next section highlights some con-
siderations that are of particular importance for libraries to address in
order to improve their KM capabilities.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND LIBRARY CULTURE

There are several aspects of the organizational culture that exists in many
libraries and influence how able or willing staff are to create and share
knowledge, and while these concerns might exist in any organization, the
way they are built into library staffing and structure make them a particu-
lar concern. Library cultures are difficult to generalize, due to the variety
in their sizes and mandates – a public library is very different than an aca-
demic library or a law library, for example, and the operations of a small
rural location may have little in common with the main branch of a metro-
politan center – so the degree to which these factors apply to any specific
institution will vary (Walker, 2011). The examples and explanations pro-
vided below assume a moderately sized library that employs a number of
librarians, library technicians, and other staff and volunteers. They are also
focused on a North American context, though research from other conti-
nents suggests that similar issues exist worldwide (Awan & Mahmood,
2010; Sheng & Sun, 2007; Wijetunge, 2012). This discussion is intended to
serve as a call for attention and research rather than an in-depth analysis,
but these are nonetheless valuable points of consideration for any library
intending to implement or revise their KM practices.

DIVERSITY

The purpose behind involving an entire organization in knowledge shar-

ing and creation is to increase the number of perspectives brought to bear
848 S. Vela

on problem-solving efforts, but the effectiveness of this approach depends

on the degree of variety among those perspectives (Ancori et al., 2000;
Cox & Blake, 1991; Kim, 2005; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & von Krogh,
2009). Expending resources to ensure that hundreds of people get to have
input in a decision-making process is going to be wasteful and fruitless if
the backgrounds and thus the knowledge bases, of all those people, are
very similar. Stahl et al. (2010) describe the intended effect as follows:

The more diverse experience (consisting of both explicit and tacit

knowledge) team members have accumulated and the wider variety of
alternative of perspectives they use to evaluate problems, the broader
the reference base of potential action-outcome linkages the team can
draw upon to inform action (p. 442).

Predicting the success of a KM program should thus involve an evalu-

ation of the diversity of an organization, and this is not an area in which
libraries always perform well (Larsen, 2017; Vinopal, 2016).
The factors that “diversity” entails are a matter of debate, as the term
has been used by KM researchers in reference to numerous traits that staff
might have. These have included traditional demographic characteristics,
such as gender, age/generation, culture/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status
(Alvesson & Karreman, 2001; Beech, MacIntosh, MacLean, Shepherd, &
Stokes, 2002; Dell'Era & Verganti, 2010; Durbin, 2011; Gilson, Lim, Luciano,
& Choi, 2013; Leonard & Insch, 2005; McGuire, 2000; Richard & Shelor,
2002; Somech & Bogler, 1999; Stahl et al., 2010; Starks, 2013;
Venkitachalam & Busch, 2012), as well as diversity of qualifications, such
as education and years of experience (Dell'Era & Verganti, 2010; McGuire,
2000; Venkitachalam & Busch, 2012), and considerations of their role in
the organization, such as department, function, seniority, and tenure at the
company (Gilson et al., 2013; Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009; Venkitachalam
& Busch, 2012). All three of these forms are significant, not only because
they each independently affect a person’s explicit and tacit knowledge, but
because they are interrelated – race and class affect educational opportuni-
ties (Lam, 2002; Wylie, 2013), age is often connected to experience and
seniority (Gilson et al., 2013), and so on. When assessing diversity in a
team, on a project, or across the organization, in general, intersections of
demographics, qualifications, and roles should thus be considered.
The ideal amount of diversity is also a matter for debate, as some stud-
ies have found that there is a parabolic pattern to its benefit: increasing
diversity will result in more innovation up to a point, but too much diver-
sity begins to have a negative effect (Cox & Blake, 1991; Dell'Era &
Verganti, 2010; Gilson et al., 2013; Richard & Shelor, 2002). This may be
the result, however, of the formation of informal networks in response to
the increased diversity, such as the “old boy’s clubs” described by Durbin
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 849

(2011) and gendered sub-teams identified by Beech et al. (2002).

Essentially, if not averted, people will instinctively seek out those with
similar identities, and if enough people of a similar background exist in a
group, then subgroups will form around those similarities, preventing so-
called “bridging” interactions between diverse members (Oztok, 2013;
Stahl et al., 2010). The issue may, therefore, not be the degree of diversity,
but whether it is effectively managed to ensure that socialization is occur-
ring between dissimilar staff members. Alvesson and Karreman (2001)
note that simply “ … mixing people in terms of, for example, age, sex,
education and ethnicity may not be sufficient” (p. 1012), they must be
“ … persuaded to define themselves in terms of the same social
identity … ” (p. 1006) as members of the same organization. As long as the
management is able to identify and address such subgroups as they occur,
maximizing diversity should be the goal.
Accurately determining the degree of diversity among library staff is chal-
lenging due to a shortage of studies and the limited statistics they present.
The figures that are available, however, provide a fairly grim indication of
how libraries are performing in this regard. As Vinopal (2016) summarizes:

We are starkly lacking in diversity based on race and ethnicity (we are
overwhelmingly white), age (librarianship is an aging profession),
disability, economic status, educational background, gender identity,
sexual orientation, and other demographic and identity markers of
difference (n.p.).

This conclusion is supported by an examination of three reports com-

pleted in the past decade (American Library Association, 2012, 2017): a
2009–2010 survey that provides counts of librarians and library assistants
at intersections of race, gender, age bracket, and disability status; the 2016
counts by age bracket of librarians and library technicians released by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; and the 2017 summary of American Library
Association (ALA) membership by gender, age bracket, race, and disability
status. These studies show that librarian positions are over 85% white,
over 80% female, and skew to the 45–54 and 55– 64-year-old age brackets
(Figure 2). Library assistant positions are slightly more racially diverse, at
73% white, and significantly younger, with 40–50% being under 35 years
old depending on the report (Figure 3).
This extreme lack of diversity in library workforces has clear implications
for KM efforts. Even if the entire organization is socializing and collaborating
fully, the staff makeup is still going to leave sizeable gaps in the knowledge
that can be shared and the innovation that can occur. The significance of
these gaps is amplified when they are considered in the context of patron
bases, such as the racial diversity of public library users and the age of stu-
dents that frequent academic libraries. Improving services to meet the needs
850 S. Vela

FIGURE 2 Librarian age statistics (American Library Association, 2012, 2017).

FIGURE 3 Library Assistant age statistics (American Library Association, 2012, 2017).

of demographics into which an organization has little insight is clearly prob-

lematic, and though it might be argued that patron consultation or user stories
can compensate for these gaps, there is a significant amount of unspecifiable
tacit knowledge that is developed by being culturally part of these diverse
communities, and no amount of study will be as effective as having these
perspectives included in the staff complement. There have been numerous
suggestions as to how to fix these issues systematically, including addressing
recruitment, training, and compensation practices (Larsen, 2017; Vinopal,
2016), but as a stopgap, making the most of the diversity that does exist in
an organization, by ensuring that minority groups are encouraged to contrib-
ute their knowledge to discussions and decisions, is a good first step.

PROFESSIONAL HIERARCHIES

Compounding issues of diversity is the longstanding division of staff based

on education and credentials. A librarian holds a master’s degree from a
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 851

university program accredited by the American Library Association, often

referred to as a Master of Library and Information Studies (MLIS), though
many variations on the degree’s name exist. A library technician credential
is a diploma from a one- or two-year college program for which there is
no accrediting body. The shorter time requirements, lower financial
thresholds, and a greater number of available programs for library techni-
cians are all reasons why there is more diversity in this group. This separ-
ation of librarians and library technicians along educational tracks has
resulted in distinct “communities of practice” (CoP), with significant ramifi-
cations for KM.
A CoP has been defined as “ … self-organizing, informal groups whose
members regularly share knowledge and learn from each other” (Carroll
et al., 2003, p. 7), but the origin of the term is linked to training and edu-
cation, particularly apprenticeship models (Duguid, 2005; Lam, 2000).
In theory these are positive entities that promote socialization across
non-departmental groups that form based on “ … shared expertise and a
passion for a joint enterprise” ( Smith, 2001, p. 318; see also Carroll et al.,
2003; Huysman, 2004), but in practice, they often create another barrier
where access to knowledge is conditional on membership in the CoP
(Duguid, 2005; Huysman, 2004; Linde, 2001; Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009).
This occurs because the shared expertise that binds the group together,
often rooted in similar education, allows for an ease of communication – a
presumption of background knowledge, the use of jargon, and related fac-
tors – that is not possible with nonmembers (Bechky, 2003; Duguid, 2003;
Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Perraton & Tarrant, 2007). Attachment to a CoP
can be so prominent that there is better knowledge sharing between
organizations than within one (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Cumberland &
Githens, 2012; Lam, 2000; Perraton & Tarrant, 2007), meaning that librar-
ians might be more likely to converse and debate with fellow librarians
from across the country, perhaps online or at a conference, than they are
to similarly socialize with library technicians within their own institution.
CoPs can develop in any organization – interdepartmental assemblages
of administrative assistants, financial managers, or information technology
professionals, for example, are a common occurrence – and while they
need to be accounted for, they are not an insurmountable obstacle to KM
in and of themselves. In libraries, however, CoPs are not just an ad hoc
grouping of staff; their presence is reflected in the structure of the organ-
ization, as differing qualifications, responsibilities, and pay scales of job
descriptions to impose not only a separation but a hierarchical arrange-
ment between librarians and library technicians.
The typical structure of a library divides functions into departments
such as collections management, reference services, or digital initiatives,
each of which may have its own subdivisions. These departments are
852 S. Vela

staffed in tiers: management positions are filled by senior librarians who

have amassed a certain amount of experience; below them are junior
librarians who may have just completed their professional degrees; next
are library technicians, also sometimes called assistants or associates; and
at the bottom are various frontline staff members who may only have a
high school diploma or GED, as well as “pages” who are frequently volun-
teers and may still be students. In most institutions, these tiers are locked
off by their education requirements, meaning that a page cannot become
a library technician without obtaining an appropriate diploma, while a
library technician cannot progress to a junior librarian without an MLIS,
regardless of years of experience. Responsibilities are assigned to roles
based on this hierarchy so that senior librarians control budgets and deci-
sion-making, junior librarians develop programing based on research,
library technicians assist librarians in implementing programs, and staff
and pages handle operations such as checking out materials and shelv-
ing books.
This formalization of the normally invisible boundaries of CoPs
increases their significance and has resulted in tension between the
groups. There is an extensive and growing debate about why this division
exists and whether it is justified (Hill, 2014; James, Shamchuk, & Koch,
2015; Litwin, 2009), and while the substance of these discussions will not
be recounted here, it is significant for KM efforts that such a disagree-
ment exists.
If the responsibilities of developing a strategy and innovating are
assigned to the top of an organization, while service delivery and support-
ing processes are tasked to the bottom, then ensuring there are strong
communication and knowledge sharing between these tiers is essential,
lest decisions be made that overlook or misunderstand the reality of oper-
ations (Nonaka, 2007; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Any degree of resent-
ment or antagonism between groups can thus be very problematic, as it
can prevent the transfer of knowledge from occurring. Librarians, for
instance, fearing deprofessionalization and a loss of status (Litwin, 2009),
may be prone to distrust or disregard the insights of library technicians
with the attitude that they are less educated or capable. Johannessen et al.
(2001) describe such a response from engineering professionals designing
a ship, who refused to entertain the notes and ideas provided by the
tradespeople who were actually constructing their plans, believing they
would lose prestige if the input were permitted from non-professionals.
For library technicians, meanwhile, even if they are brought into a discus-
sion, they may be disinclined to contribute due to two possible effects:
either they resent their lesser status and are reluctant to share their know-
ledge and give up what power they have, or they internalize the concept
that they are less capable and become unwilling to contribute because
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 853

they “ … consider their expertise to be inadequate” (Matzler, Renzl, M€uller,

Herting, & Mooradian, 2007, p. 306). These and other scenarios can derail
efforts to improve knowledge sharing in an organization.
Overcoming this issue is perhaps the largest challenge that libraries
face in their KM efforts, as it may already be ingrained in their workforce
before staff is even hired. The so-called “local community” where mem-
bers enter a CoP has a profound impact on the knowledge they gain from
it (Duguid, 2003), particularly on cognitive and social unspecifiable tacit
knowledge – their sense of identity within the group and their uncon-
scious regard for other groups. For librarians and library technicians, this
local community is their place of education, where they undergo the
required rituals to prove themselves members, and gain all manner of
explicit and tacit understanding of the CoP along the way (Brown &
Duguid, 2001; Huysman, 2004; Martin, 2012). The sense of identity gained
in an education program can be very strong, and any factors that disturb
or diminish that identity tend to be resisted. For example, new teachers
have been found to ignore their own observations and evidence that a
teaching method is ineffective and continue to behave as they were taught
out of a “ … psychological need to be identified as a genuine teacher”
(Eraut, 2000, p. 122) who behave as their CoP expects. Similar behaviors
have been reported among engineers who “ … invested years in learning
how to build exact physical models and product prototypes … ” (Nonaka
& von Krogh, 2009, p. 640) and reject approaches that conflict with their
education. Carroll et al. (2003) have suggested that changing professional
attitudes cannot be done at the level of an individual organization, but
requires revision of education and professional development, as well as
shifts in professional administration and even public attitudes – in this
case, the perception that vocational training is inferior to academia
(Lam, 2000; 2002).
Whether this kind of change to the current culture of libraries is pos-
sible or even desirable is a matter for future debate. In terms of promoting
KM, however, the fact remains that “equality in status among participants
is critical for sharing tacit knowledge” (Kim, 2005, p. 230), and the pres-
ence of professional hierarchies is thus an issue that needs to be
addressed. Finding a solution that is actually practical, however, is going
to require additional research and trial-and-error testing. Many of the con-
crete recommendations that can be found in the literature, such as flatten-
ing hierarchies or changing responsibilities so frontline staff can make
decisions and engage in innovation (Nonaka, 2007; Wiig et al., 1997),
would be massive and very political undertakings that could easily back-
fire if mishandled, causing CoPs to become more deeply entrenched in
defense. A less radical approach might be to identify staff members who
are what Whitchurch (2008) calls “unbounded professionals”, people who
854 S. Vela

naturally ignore the boundaries of CoPs, departments, hierarchies, etc. in

pursuit of their work, and publicly acknowledge or reward them to
encourage others to behave similarly. Whether such individuals exist and
can be identified in a given organization, however, makes this far from a
universal answer. Whatever approach is taken, affecting any cultural
change is a slow process that requires consistent effort and reinforcement
from leadership.
All organizations, whether businesses or public institutions, must strive
to improve their operations and services in order to remain relevant.
Having good KM practices is a cornerstone of progress and innovation,
but successfully encouraging staff to produce and share knowledge equit-
ably is not a simple matter. The cultures and management approaches of
many institutions can limit socialization between groups and stifle creativ-
ity. Leadership, managers and frontline staff may all struggle to overcome
established routines or cultural norms and to focus on the good of the
organization as a whole over their own aspirations and departmental loy-
alties. Effectively overcoming these issues can require fundamental
changes to the hierarchical structure and job responsibilities that would
be very difficult for public institutions, which thrive on stability and
tradition, to implement. Libraries, in particular, face challenges due to the
nature of their workforces, which lack diversity and exist in divided
professional CoPs as a result of their education. Nonetheless, it is vital
that libraries find ways to overcome these issues and enhance their
KM programs. Additional research is required both locally and at
national and international associations to better understand how the
education and staffing practices in libraries are impacting
communication between their employees and the knowledge that is being
missed or disregarded as these institutions set their strategies for
the future.

REFERENCES

Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious
concept of knowledge management. Journal of Management Studies, 38,
995–1018. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00269
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for
operationalization. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 811–829. doi:10.1111/
1467-6486.00260
American Library Association. (2012). Diversity counts 2009–2010 update.
Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/diversity/diversitycounts/
2009-2010update.
American Library Association. (2017). Member demographics study. Retrieved
from http://www.ala.org/tools/research/initiatives/membershipsurveys.
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 855

Ancori, B., Bureth, A., & Cohendet, P. (2000). The economics of knowledge: The
debate about codification and tacit knowledge. Industrial and Corporate
Change, 9, 255–287. doi:10.1093/icc/9.2.255
Awan, M. R., & Mahmood, K. (2010). Relationship among leadership style,
organizational culture, and employee commitment in university libraries.
Library Management, 31(4/5), 253–266. doi:10.1108/01435121011046326
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The
transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization
Science, 14, 312–330. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162
Beech, N., MacIntosh, R., MacLean, D., Shepherd, J., & Stokes, J. (2002).
Exploring constraints on developing knowledge: On the need for conflict.
Management Learning, 33, 459–475. doi:10.1177/1350507602334004
Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice
perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198–213. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational
culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Carroll, J. M., Choo, C. W., Dunlap, D. R., Isenhour, P. L., Kerr, S. T., MacLean, A., &
Rosson, M. B. (2003). Knowledge management support for teachers. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 51, 42–64. doi:10.1007/BF02504543
Choo, C. W. (1998). The knowing organization: How organizations use
information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Choo, C. W. (n.d). FAQs on knowledge management. Retrieved from http://choo.
ischool.utoronto.ca/KMfaq/
Chugh, R. (2015). Do Australian universities encourage tacit knowledge transfer?
In A. Fred, J. Dietz, D. Aveiro, K. Liu, & J. Filipe (Eds.), Proceedings of the
7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge
Engineering and Knowledge Management (Vol. 1, pp. 128–135). Set ubal,
Portugal: Scitepress. doi:10.5220/0005585901280135
Cimino, J. J. (1999). Development of expertise in medical practice. In R. J.
Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice:
Researcher and practitioner perspectives (pp. 101–119). Mahwah, NJ: L.
Erlbaum.
Collins, H. M. (2001). Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies
of Science, 31, 71–85. doi:10.1177/030631201031001004
Cox, T., & Blake, H. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for
organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5,
45–57. doi:10.5465/ame.1991.4274465
Cumberland, D., & Githens, R. (2012). Tacit knowledge barriers in franchising:
Practical solutions. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24, 48–58. doi:10.1108/
13665621211191104
Dell’Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2010). Collaborative strategies in design-intensive
industries: Knowledge diversity and innovation. Long-Range Planning, 43,
123–141. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.10.006
856 S. Vela

Duguid, P. (2005). “The art of knowing”: Tacit dimensions of knowledge and the
limits of the community of practice. The Information Society: An
International Journal, 21, 109–118. doi:10.1080/01972240590925311
Durbin, S. (2011). Creating knowledge through networks: A gender perspective.
Gender, Work and Organization, 18, 90–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00536.x
Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 113–136. doi:10.1348/
000709900158001
Francis, M., & Wingrove, D. (2017). More than a feeling: Reflecting on identity
and the reality of practice through a library and academic development
collaboration. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association,
66, 42–29. doi:10.1080/00049670.2017.1282926
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Luciano, M. M., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Unpacking the
cross-level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge
sharing on individual creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86, 203–222. doi:10.1111/joop.12011
G€oksel, A., & Aydıntan, B. (2017). How can tacit knowledge be shared more in
organizations? A multidimensional approach to the role of social capital and
locus of control. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 15, 34–44.
doi:10.1057/kmrp.2015.22
Gourlay, S. (2006a). Towards conceptual clarity for “tacit knowledge”: A review of
empirical studies. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4, 60–69.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500082
Gourlay, S. (2006b). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s
theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1415–1436. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2006.00637.x
Hildreth, P. M., & Kimble, C. (2002). The duality of knowledge. Information
Resources, 8, 142. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-
00492437
Hill, C. (2014). The professional divide: Examining workplace relationships
between librarians and library technicians. The Australian Library Journal,
63, 23–34. doi:10.1080/00049670.2014.890020
Hummelen, I., & Scholte, T. (2004). Sharing knowledge for the conservation of
contemporary art: Changing roles in a museum without walls? Studies in
Conservation, 49(sup2), 208–212. doi:10.1179/sic.2004.49.s2.045
Huysman, M. (2004). Communities of practice: Facilitating social learning while
frustrating organizational learning. In H. Tsoukas & N. Mylonopoulos (Eds.),
Organizations as knowledge systems: Knowledge, learning, and dynamic
capabilities (pp. 67–85). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
James, N., Shamchuk, L., & Koch, K. (2015). Changing roles of librarians and library
technicians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information
Practice and Research, 10, 1–29. doi:10.21083/partnership.v10i2.3333
Johannessen, J.-A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (2001). Mismanagement of tacit
knowledge: The importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information
technology, and what to do about it. International Journal of Information
Management, 21, 3–20. doi:10.1016/S0268-4012(00)00047-5
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 857

Joia, L. A., & Lemos, B. (2010). Relevant factors for tacit knowledge transfer
within organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 410–427. doi:
10.1108/13673271011050139
Kim, E.-H. (2005). Tacit knowledge in government-led R&D project selection.
Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 13, 223–237. doi:10.1080/
19761597.2005.9668615
Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions:
An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21, 487–513. doi:10.1177/
0170840600213001
Lam, A. (2002). Alternative societal models of learning and innovation in the
knowledge economy. International Social Science Journal, 54, 67–82. doi:
10.1111/1468-2451.00360
Larsen, S. E. (2017). Diversity in public libraries: Strategies for achieving a more
representative workforce. Public Libraries Magazine, 56(3). Retrieved from
http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2017/12/diversity-in-public-librariesstrategies-
for-achieving-a-more-representative-workforce/
Leonard, N., & Insch, G. S. (2005). Tacit knowledge in academia: A proposed
model and measurement scale. The Journal of Psychology, 139, 495–512. doi:
10.3200/JRLP.139.6.495-512
Leong, J. (2014). Purpose-driven learning for library staff. The Australian Library
Journal, 63, 108–117. doi:10.1080/00049670.2014.898236
Linde, C. (2001). Narrative and social tacit knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5, 160–171. doi:10.1108/13673270110393202
Litwin, R. (2009). The library paraprofessional movement and the
deprofessionalization of librarianship. Progressive Librarian, 33, 43–60.
Retrieved from http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL33/043.pdf
Maloney, K., Antelman, K., Arlitsch, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Future leaders’ views
on organizational culture. College & Research Libraries, 71, 322–345. doi:
10.5860/crl-47
Marchant, G., & Robinson, J. (1999). Is knowing the tax code all it takes to be a
tax expert? On the development of legal expertise. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A.
Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and
practitioner perspectives (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Martin, J. (2012, August 22). That’s how we do things around here:
Organizational culture (and change) in libraries [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/thats-how-we-do-things-aro
und-here/
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., M€ uller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008).
Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology,
29, 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.06.004
McAdam, R., Mason, B., & McCrory, J. (2007). Exploring the dichotomies within
the tacit knowledge literature: Towards a process of tacit knowing in
organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11, 43–59. doi:10.1108/
13673270710738906
McGuire, G. M. (2000). Gender, race, ethnicity and networks: The factors affecting
the status of employees’ network members. Work and Occupations, 27,
501–523. doi:10.1177/0730888400027004004
858 S. Vela

Mehziri, M. H. R., & Bontis, N. (2009). A cluster analysis of the KM field.

Management Decision, 47, 792–805. doi:10.1108/00251740910960123
Minstrell, J. (1999). Expertise in teaching. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.),
Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner
perspectives (pp. 215–230). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Mooradian, N. (2005). Tacit knowledge: Philosophic roots and role in KM. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 9, 104–113. doi:10.1108/13673270510629990
Mu~noz, C. A., Mosey, S., & Binks, M. (2015). The tacit mystery: Reconciling
different approaches to tacit knowledge. Knowledge Management Research
and Practice, 13, 289–298. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2013.50
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science, 5, 14–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I. (2007). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review,
July–August, 162–171. Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, November-
December, 96–104, 1991. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-knowledge-
creating-company
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for
knowledge-creation. California Management Review, 40, 40–54. doi:10.2307/
41165942
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How
Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., & von Krogh, G. (2009). Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion:
Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory.
Organization Science, 20, 635–652. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0412
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge
creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization
Studies, 27, 1179–1208. doi:10.1177/0170840606066312
Oguz, F., & Elif Şeng€ un, A. (2011). Mystery of the unknown: Revisiting tacit
knowledge in the organizational literature. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 15, 445–461. doi:10.1108/13673271111137420
Oztok, M. (2013). Tacit knowledge in online learning: Community, identity, and
social capital. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22, 21–36. doi:10.1080/
1475939X.2012.720414
Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., & Kaufman, D. R. (1999). Expertise and tacit knowledge
in medicine. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in
professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives (pp. 75–100).
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Perraton, J., & Tarrant, I. (2007). What does tacit knowledge actually explain? Journal
of Economic Methodology, 14, 353–370. doi:10.1080/13501780701562559
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London, UK: Routledge & K. Paul.
Ralph, L., & Tijerino, C. (2009). Knowledge management and library culture. College
and Undergraduate Libraries, 16, 329–337. doi:10.1080/10691310903355960
Ray, T., & Clegg, S. (2007). Can we make sense of knowledge management’s
tangible rainbow? A radical constructivist alternative. Prometheus, 25,
161–185. doi:10.1080/08109020701342249
 Knowledge Management, Diversity, and Professional Hierarchies in Libraries 859

Richard, O. C., & Shelor, M. (2002). Linking top management team age
heterogeneity to firm performance: Juxtaposing two mid-range theories.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 958–974. doi:
10.1080/09585190210134309
Rowley, J. (2000). Is higher education ready for knowledge management?
International Journal of Educational Management, 14, 325–333. doi:10.1108/
09513540010378978
Sheng, X., & Sun, L. (2007). Developing knowledge innovation culture of libraries.
Library Management, 28(1/2), 36–52. doi:10.1108/01435120710723536
Shepstone, C., & Currie, L. (2008). Transforming the academic library: Creating an
organizational culture that fosters staff success. Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 34, 358–368. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2008.05.008
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 311–321. doi:10.1108/
13673270110411733
Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (1999). Tacit knowledge in academic: Its effects on
student learning and achievement. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 605–616.
doi:10.1080/00223989909599766
Spaeth, E. B. (1999). What a lawyer needs to learn. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A.
Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and
practitioner perspectives (pp. 21–36). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Stahl, G. K., M€akel€a, K., Zander, L., & Maznevski, M. L. (2010). A look at the
bright side of multicultural team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26, 439–447. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.009
Starks, A. (2013). The forthcoming generational workforce transition and
rethinking organizational knowledge transfer. Journal of Intergenerational
Relationships, 11, 223–237. doi:10.1080/15350770.2013.810494
Stenmark, D. (2000). Leveraging tacit organisational knowledge. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 17, 9–24. doi:10.1080/07421222.2000.11045655
Suppiah, V., & Sandhu, M. S. (2011). Organisational culture’s influence on tacit
knowledge-sharing behavior. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15,
462–477. doi:10.1108/13673271111137439
Taylor, T. Z., Elison-Bowers, P., Werth, E., Bell, E., Carbajal, J., Lamm, K. B., &
Velazquez, E. (2013). A police officer’s tacit knowledge inventory (POTKI):
Establishing construct validity and exploring applications. Police Practice and
Research, 14, 478–490. doi:10.1080/15614263.2013.802847
Torff, B. (1999). Tacit knowledge in teaching: Folk pedagogy and teacher
education. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Horvath (Eds.), Tacit knowledge in
professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives (pp. 195–214).
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In M. Easterby-
Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning
and knowledge management (pp. 410–427). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Venkitachalam, K., & Busch, P. (2012). Tacit knowledge: Review and possible
research directions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 357–372. doi:
10.1108/13673271211218915
860 S. Vela

Vinopal, J. (2016, January 13). The quest for diversity in library staffing: From
awareness to action. Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.
org/2016/quest-for-diversity/
Walker, S. (2011). Determining and navigating institutional culture. The Bottom
Line, 24, 113–117. doi:10.1108/08880451111169151
Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence
of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education
Quarterly, 62, 377–396. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00387.x
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where
will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13, 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0957-
4174(97)00018-3
Wiig, K. M. (2002). Knowledge management in public administration. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 6, 224–239. doi:10.1108/13673270210434331
Wiig, K. M., de Hoog, R., & van der Spek, R. (1997). Supporting knowledge
management: A selection of methods and techniques. Expert Systems with
Applications, 13, 15–27. doi:10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00019-5
Wijetunge, P. (2012). Organizational storytelling as a method of tacit-knowledge
transfer: Case study from a Sri Lankan university. The International Information
& Library Review, 44, 212–223. doi:10.1080/10572317.2012.10762934
Wipawayangkool, K., & Teng, J. T. C. (2016). Paths to tacit knowledge sharing:
Knowledge internalization and individual-task-technology fit. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, 14, 309–318. doi:10.1057/kmrp.2014.33
Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. In R. Figueroa & S. Harding (Eds.),
Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology
(pp. 26–48). New York: Routledge.
Zarraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge
outcomes in self-managed teams. Organization Studies, 26, 661–681. doi:
10.1177/0170840605051820