The literature on learning and types of organisational knowledge for transfer is integrated in this dissertation to help us understand the core areas of learning for knowledge transfer as part of organisational culture: experiential learning, cultural knowledge, and cultural intelligence. This literature shows that for the deliberate practice and accumulation of experience, learning is a key feature of knowledge. KM studies show that the legacy of knowledge is conceptualised as ‘true belief’ (Plato, 1987, 201c-d), knowledge is a cognitive hybrid, and knowledge is justified by experience (Williamson, 2000). In addition to understanding expert knowledge, it is also important to appreciate how knowledge is acquired, transmitted or lost. Studies by Garvin (1993) and Joo (2009) have pointed to the lack of research in this area.
2.4.1
Learning in Knowledge Transfer and Managing Knowledge
Learning is one method of knowledge transfer. Learning can be viewed at two levels. First, learning occurs at the individual level. Second, learning occurs at the organisational level, where knowledge valuable to the organisation is nurtured. McKenzie and van Winkelen’s (2004) KM framework defines learning as knowledge development with the intention of refining domain-specific knowledge and absorbing a culture of practice bringing cognitive and behavioural change to performance. Organisational learning literature has recognised as successful reformation of organisational difficulties, as well as the development of insights. Chandler (1962), Simon (1969), Duncan (1974), Miles and Snow (1978), Jelinek (1979), Miller and Friesen (1980), Shrivastava (1981), and Fiol and Lyles (1985) acknowledge that previous studies attempted to define organisational learning. No definition of organisational learning is widely accepted, however, particularly with respect to strategic performance. Collinson and Cook’s (2007) definition of organisational learning ‘as the deliberate use of individual, group, and system learning to embed new thinking and practices that continuously renew and transform the organisation in ways that support shared aims’ (p. 8) is consistent with the understanding used in this dissertation. Argote (2013) describes organisational learning as learning that occurs when the dimensions of an external environment affect the experience acquired in the organisation, and the changing context interacts with the experience to create
According to Fiol and Lyles (1985) and Argote (2013), learning involves a change in the state of knowledge and organisational outcomes. Learning is described as new knowledge (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Hedberg 1981), new structures (Chandler, 1962), new systems (Jelinek, 1979; Miles, 1982), actions (Cyert & March, 1963; Miller & Friesen, 1980), or a combination of all of these approaches to address tasks and challenges (Shrivastava & Mitroff, 1983; Bartunek, 1984; Shrivastava, & Schneider, 1984; Sunassee & Haumant, 2004) that occur in context (Glynn, Lant & Miliken, 1994). An organisation’s strategy influences learning by providing a context for the perception and interpretation of the environment and boundaries for decision-making (Chandler, 1962; Cyert & March, 1963; Daft & Weick, 1984). Within the organisation, strategic decisions serve as a function of learning capacity (Burgelman, 1983) and establish the momentum for organisational learning (Miller & Friesen, 1980).
The organisation's structure has the potential to affect learning outcomes. For example, centralised, mechanistic structures support past behaviours and preservation of the status-quo while a more decentralised structure facilitates shifts in beliefs and actions. Centralised functional organisations may be efficient but are less likely to adapt (Starbuck, Greve, & Hedberg, 1978; Vancil, 1978; Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1984). A decentralised structure decreases the cognitive workload of individuals, which allows the integration of new patterns and associations by reducing information demands (Galbraith, 1973). Meyer (1982) suggests that ‘formalised and complex structures retard learning but that learning is enhanced by structures that diffuse decision influence’ (p. 533). For these reasons, some authors have argued that organisations should encourage learning and reflective action (Morgan & Ramirez, 1983).
When the internal or external environment is too complex and dynamic for the organisation, information and knowledge overload may occur, and these can impede learning (Lawrence & Dyer, 1983; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Lin, 2007a). Learning in an organisation involves the construction and management of tension between status quo and change. Thus, a certain amount of stress is required if learning is to occur (Cangelosi and Dill, 1965; Starbuck et al., 1978). The amount of stress and the extent of past successes determine the efficiency of the conditions of learning, which affects how the environment is interpreted by each and every employee (Starbuck et al., 1978; Weick, 1979; Daft and Weick, 1984).
Recognising knowledge, but not acknowledging how it is applied in an organisation, is not sufficient for a sustainable KM program. Thus, a learning organisation must leverage the contribution of individuals through knowledge sharing and transfer. The critical features of KM in organisations are discussed in the following section.
2.4.2
Sharing and Transfer
Ackerman’s (1994) field studies, grounded in social psychology and organisational behaviour, have highlighted the significance of expertise for KM theory. The weakness in the KM literature, however, is a lack of clarity concerning knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing as well as the interchangeable use of transfer and sharing without clear grounding.
According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge transfer ‘involves both the transmission of information to a recipient and absorption and transformation by that person or group’ (p. 101). Argote and Ingram (2000) define knowledge transfer as ‘the process through which one unit (e.g., group, department, or division) is affected by the experience of another’ (p. 151). Knowledge transfer may be achieved through collective problem-solving and decision-making (DeLong & Fahey, 2000; Muscatello, 2003; Kaner & Karni, 2004). This method of organisational knowledge-sharing can reduce the time required to solve problems and may decrease the likelihood of repeated mistakes (Lin et al., 2006).
Knowledge sharing can be explained by Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) view of social capital as knowledge that is accumulated in an organisation. Social capital has three dimensions: relational (trust), structural (communication systems), and cognitive (cultural beliefs). This is consistent with Salisbury’s (2003) work on the knowledge-sharing process. Within the process, when the individual is in control of the knowledge to be shared, they into that knowledge source, identify the knowledge sharing target, and, finally, select a knowledge-sharing method. Hislop (2003) and Lee et al. (2006) add that knowledge sharing could be the result of employees’ motivations and a high level of commitment to the organisation.
Wasko and Faraj (2005) have studied knowledge contributors and knowledge seekers, and argue that both interact, but with no assurance of whether they contribute as required. Thus, the contributor risks losing their unique knowledge (Thibaut & Kelly, 1959; Thorn & Connolly 1987). The literature also identifies barriers to knowledge-sharing and transfer. The notion of ‘sticky’ knowledge, or knowledge that is difficult to pass on, summarises many of the challenges that are associated with the transfer and sharing of knowledge (von Hippel, 1994; Szulanski, 1996; Von Brown & Duguid, 2001; Orlikowski, 2002). Different explanations account for reasons why knowledge becomes ‘sticky’. For example, an unwillingness to share knowledge (Christensen, 2007); limitations to the recipient’s absorptive capacity (Szulanski, 1996) and lack of trust and commitment between the source and recipient in the knowledge transfer process also affect the ‘stickiness’ of knowledge (Prusak & Fahey, 1998). Grayson and O’Dell (1998) discuss inappropriate and uncommunicative organisational structures that
functions are too focused on maximising their own accomplishments and rewards tend to hoard information and knowledge, thus jeopardising the performance of the organisation as a whole. Park, Kim and Sung (2014) and Pfeffer (1981 and 1992) contend that expert knowledge is a fundamental organisational power source, and there will be resistance by parties if threatened with loss of power.
March and Olsen (1975), Argyris and Schon (1978), Duncan and Weiss (1979), Fiol and Lyles (1985), and Levitt and March (1988) define organisational learning as a process of change that models experiential learning influenced by culture and systems. The change process results in action linking the individual and the organisation.
While individual learning is relevant to organisations, organisational learning involves the totality of an individual’s learning. Unlike individuals, organisations develop and maintain learning systems that are conveyed to other members through the organisation’s history and norms (Mitroff & Kilmann, 1976; Martin, 1982; Lawrence & Dyer, 1983; Argote, 2013). Learning allows organisations to establish organisational understanding and interpretation of their environment and to evaluate strategies that result in associations, cognitive systems, and memories developed and shared by members of the organisation (Starbuck et al., 1978; Donaldson & Lorsch, 1983; Daft & Weick, 1984).
The following sub-sections summarise the core areas of learning for the transfer of knowledge as organisational culture: experiential learning, cultural knowledge, and cultural intelligence.
2.4.3
Experiential Learning
Theoretical understanding of an individual’s learning stems from the influential works of Piaget (1929 and 1960), who states that thought and reasoning lead to learning. Saddington (1992) and Moon (2004) describe experiential learning as a process of acquiring concepts from experiences to generate a new learning experience. The authors posit that experiential learning serves as a guide for learners in translating a new learning concept. Green (1995) and Moon (2004) contend that experiential learning can be structured and sequenced to increase the effectiveness of the learning experience.
Experiential learning can be studied from several perspectives. From the cognitive perspective, the accumulation of prior knowledge enhances the intellectual capacity of individuals for memorising new knowledge and performing in their practice (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Specifically, learning and experience increase the ability of individuals to interpret information and to expertly select the information that can facilitate decision-making (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Relevant prior knowledge assists in internalising, processing, and reflecting to gain
further learning (Kwok & Gao, 2005). Research shows that individuals without relevant experience usually find new knowledge difficult or even impossible to interpret given that the interpretation requires related prior knowledge (Kuhlthau, 1993; Beveren, 2002).
Extensive studies have been conducted in the cognitive science fields concerning these aspects of knowledge. Studies in cognitive science show that individuals inherit their environment (Ehrlich et al., 2003; Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). Expert knowledge is the focus of this dissertation; therefore, inherited perspectives are presented to emphasise the knowledge gathered by individuals in situations and the framing of that knowledge within the mindset of the individual. The interpretation and transfer of workplace and cultural knowledge allows a deeper understanding of experts’ knowledge contribution and potential knowledge loss for organisations.
2.4.4
Expert Knowledge Repository
Expert knowledge repositories encourage the collection, storage, and distribution of structured knowledge forms. Liebowitz and Beckman (1998) define a ‘knowledge repository’ as an
online computer-based storehouse of expertise, knowledge, experience, and documentation about a particular domain of expertise. In creating a knowledge
repository, knowledge is collected, summarised, and integrated across sources (p. 370). This thesis draws on more recent studies on information systems and technology to show a link with the expert knowledge literature. It contextualising within the space where an individual exercises knowledge and skills and, together with the elements of intuitive knowledge capturing and codification, are important in the effective use of knowledge repositories, particularly for learning purposes (Garavan, O’Brien, & Murphy, 2014).
2.4.5
Cultural Knowledge
Sackman (1991) contributes to the technical framework of cultural knowledge from a cognitive perspective and describes culture as ‘organised knowledge’ (Sackman, 1991, p. 21). According to this perspective, knowledge is constructed by and inseparable from the individual. Knowledge is constructed in a system of activities and processes of knowing within the organisational context, and knowledge refers to accumulated knowledge, judgements, sense- making and frames of reference based on continued practice and learning. Sackman (1991) suggests four main types of cultural knowledge. These are: (1) recipe knowledge (knowing what to do, what not to do, and what should be done); (2) dictionary knowledge (knowing what to do
in certain circumstances, or what is termed ‘execution’) (p. 49); (3) directory knowledge (this is the ‘how’ of knowledge); and (4) axiomatic knowledge (knowing ‘why’).
Thus, cultural knowledge in an organisation develops when members possess cultural intelligence. The next section presents the link between cultural intelligence and organisational knowledge and culture.
2.4.6
Cultural Intelligence
Cultural intelligence can be defined as an individual’s capacity to effectively operate and manage a culturally diverse environment (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990; Ang et al., 2007; Livermore, 2011). Cultural intelligence also suggests the ability to skilfully recognise specific behaviours in a group and manage them (Tan, 2004; Brislin et al., 2006). The components of cultural intelligence, as stated by Ang et al. (2007) and Crowne (2013), include judgement ability, decision-making skills, cultural adaptation, and task performance. Individual cultural intelligence develops incrementally in five stages of evolution (Sawhney, Thomas, & Inkson, 2008), namely:
a) Normal stimuli-aspects or evaluating cultural background b) Recognition factors or similarities between cultures c) Adoption of cultural norms
d) Integration of diverse cultural norms e) Proactivity in cultural behaviour
In summary, an individual’s knowledge is highly dependent on the development of knowledge acquisition for success. The individual must be cognitively, physically, and emotionally or motivationally ready to learn and engage with the organisation. Cultural intelligence is essential in reflection and learning (Earley & Peterson, 2004; Crowne, 2013) and influences experiential learning (Ng et al., 2009).
2.4.7
Knowledge Retention
Scholars in the knowledge management field have also noted that knowledge is deemed to be the core element of institutional memory and an integral component of processes that drives sharing, transferring, and learning (Olivera, 2000; Argote, et al, 2003; Schmitt, Borzillo & Probst, 2011). Knowledge retention does not just focus on the transfer from tacit knowledge or explicit knowledge embodied in the knowledge management system. Knowledge retention also involves employees engaging collaboratively and gaining deeper insights to then learn and adapt to improve the organization’s performance (Kannan & Madden-Hallet, 2006). Knowledge
retention thus encourages a complex discussion on what knowledge an organisation needs to retain. Scholars such as Cohen and Levinthal (1990), Madesen, et al. (2003), and Anderson and Sun (2010) have argued that the knowledge retained needs to be purposeful and enable
categorisation and sense-making. As Schmitt et al. (2011) states: “The conservation of relevant knowledge on various organizational levels helps to create a context that enables collective knowledge processes and social integration mechanisms for absorptive capacity” (p.67).
2.5
Chapter Summary
This chapter has presented a comprehensive cross-disciplinary review of the literature about expert knowledge and the significance of knowledge contribution within an organisational context. The chapter has illustrated that there is a need for a study that shows how knowledge retention and loss can be conceptualised. The chapter has also shown that there is a need to move beyond the scientific and clinical understanding of experts and expertise, and examine at a more narrative level how the expert individual perceives they are contributing to an organisation; what they value as critical to be retained for learning and sharing within the organisation; and what could potentially be lost when the expert leaves the organisation.
The following chapter discusses the research methodology employed to conduct the research, and the ways in which the research questions will lead us to develop an appropriate KM