Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework

http://hrd.sagepub.com/Review

Human Resource Development

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/2/4/337The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534484303257985

2003 2: 337Human Resource Development ReviewMinu Ipe

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Human Resource Development ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/2/4/337.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2003Version of Record >>

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 20, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 20, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hrd.sagepub.com/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/2/4/337

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ahrd.org/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/2/4/337.refs.html

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/2/4/337.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



10.1177/1534484303257985 ARTICLEHuman Resource Development Review / December 2003Ipe / KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations:A Conceptual Framework

MINU IPEUniversity of Minnesota

Knowledge is now being seen as the most important strategic resource inorganizations, and the management of this knowledge is considered criti-cal to organizational success. If organizations have to capitalize on theknowledge they possess, they have to understand how knowledge is cre-ated, shared, and used within the organization. Knowledge exists and isshared at different levels in organizations. This article examines knowl-edge sharing at the most basic level; namely, between individuals in orga-nizations. Based on a review of existing literature in this area, this articlepresents a model that identifies factors that most significantly influenceknowledge sharing at this level.

Keywords: knowledge; knowledge sharing; knowledge transfer; knowl-edge sharing between individuals

In recent years, the concept of knowledge in organizations has becomeincreasingly popular in the literature (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001), withknowledge being recognized as the most important resource of organi-zations (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Spender & Grant, 1996). Althoughknowledge has always been an important factor in organizations, only in thelast decade has it been considered the primary source of competitive advan-tage (Stewart, 1997) and critical to the long-term sustainability and successof organizations (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The recognition of knowledgeas the key resource of today’s organizations affirms the need for processesthat facilitate the creation, sharing, and leveraging of individual and collec-tive knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Drucker, 1993).More and more organizations are attempting to set up knowledge manage-ment systems and practices to more effectively use the knowledge theyhave, and numerous publications have discussed the importance of knowl-edge in organizations. Even so, there is much to be learned and understoodabout how knowledge is created, shared, and used in organizations (Grover& Davenport, 2001; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001).

Human Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. 4 December 2003 337-359DOI: 10.1177/1534484303257985© 2003 Sage Publications

Theory and Conceptual Article

at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on November 20, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from


The purpose of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of thephenomenon of knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations.Drawing on literature from several fields of study, a model of knowledgesharing between individuals in organizations is developed. Althoughknowledge exists at many levels in organizations, the focus of this article isthe knowledge that exists with and within individuals and the factors thatinfluence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals.

The field of knowledge management has traditionally been dominated byinformation technology and technology-driven perspectives (Davenport,De Long, & Beers, 1998; Gourlay, 2001). However, there is increasing rec-ognition of the role of individuals in knowledge management processes anda growing interest in the “people perspective” of knowledge in organi-zations (Earl, 2001; Stenmark, 2001). The key to successfully managingknowledge is now being seen as dependent on the connections between indi-viduals within the organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991; McDermott,1999). Increasing empirical evidence also points to the importance of peo-ple and people-related factors as critical to knowledge processes withinorganizations (e.g., Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Quinn, Anderson, &Finkelstein, 1996).

At the heart of the people perspective of knowledge management is thenotion that individuals in organizations have knowledge (Spender & Grant,1996) that must move to the level of groups and the organization as a wholeso that it can be used to advance the goals of the organization (Nonaka,1994). There is growing realization that knowledge sharing is critical toknowledge creation, organizational learning, and performance achievement(Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Individuals in organizations have always cre-ated and shared knowledge and therefore knowledge sharing was consid-ered to be a natural function of workplaces, an activity that took place auto-matically (Chakravarthy, Zaheer, & Zaheer, 1999). Yet it is now beingacknowledged that even under the best of circumstances, knowledge shar-ing within organizations is a multifaceted, complex process (Hendriks,1999; Lessard & Zaheer, 1996).

Method

A variety of fields have reported on the concept of knowledge and knowl-edge sharing in organizations. The conceptual framework presented in thisarticle has drawn on literature from fields such as management theory, stra-tegic management, information and decision sciences, organizational com-munication, and organizational behavior. These fields of study were identi-fied through a search of scholarly literature available primarily throughelectronic databases. The initial review of literature began with an examina-tion of publications that discussed the concept of knowledge and how this

338 Human Resource Development Review / December 2003



knowledge existed within organizations. The review process was then nar-rowed down to publications that referred specifically to the movement ofknowledge within organizations. Some of the key concepts considered dur-ing the review included knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledgecreation, knowledge acquisition, individual and organizational learning,and information distribution and dissemination.

The initial broad review of relevant literature was followed by the pro-cess of analysis and synthesis. Analysis of literature began with identifyingpublications that were relevant to this article, those that addressed issuesrelated to individual knowledge in organizations and how individualsshared their knowledge with others within their work settings. Once rele-vant publications were identified, the focus of the analysis shifted to iso-lating those ideas that specifically related to knowledge sharing betweenindividuals. Specific attention was given to identifying common themesamong the various sources during this process.

The key factors related to knowledge sharing that emerged from the liter-ature were then synthesized to form the conceptual framework presented inthis article. The process of synthesis focused on capturing the dominantideas related to knowledge sharing as it exists at this point in time. Thereview of literature revealed important ideas generated by several fields ofstudy pertaining to knowledge and knowledge sharing in organizations. Theconceptual framework presented in this article is an attempt to bringtogether all these ideas into one whole to provide a more comprehensiveapproach to understanding the phenomenon of knowledge sharing withinorganizations. The framework also proposes relationships between the dif-ferent factors identified from the literature. Some of these relationships areapparent in the literature, whereas others are being proposed in this article tofurther explore the interaction between the primary factors that influenceknowledge sharing in organizational settings. These relationships are dis-cussed in detail later in the article.

Knowledge in Organizations

Although there is much written aboutwhy managing knowledge isimportant to organizations, there is considerably less on thehow—the pro-cesses that are used to identify, capture, share, and use knowledge withinorganizations. Knowledge in organizational settings tends to be fuzzy innature and closely attached to the individuals who hold it (Davenport et al.,1998), challenging efforts to define, measure, and manage it. Knowledgecan also be subject to multiple classifications and can have several mean-ings. A comprehensive review of the various classifications of knowledge isbeyond the scope of this article. Some useful categorizations may be foundin Blackler (1995) and Venzin, von Krogh, and Roos (1998).

Ipe / KNOWLEDGE SHARING 339



The termsinformationandknowledgeare often used interchangeably inthe literature. Some authors distinguished between the two terms (e.g.,Blackler, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;Pemberton, 1998), whereas others used both terms synonymously (e.g.,Kogut & Zander, 1992; Stewart, 1997). This article recognizes the distinc-tion between information and knowledge.

Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined knowledge as “a fluid mix offramed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insights thatprovides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences andinformation. It originates in and is applied in the minds of knowers” (p. 5).Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) definition of knowledge is far broader inscope and is stated as “a dynamic human process of justifying personalbelief toward the truth” (p. 58). According to these authors, information isthe “flow of messages” (p. 58), and knowledge is created when this flow ofmessages interacts with the beliefs and commitments of its holders. Theyidentified three characteristics that distinguished information from knowl-edge. First, knowledge is a function of a particular perspective, intention, orstance taken by individuals, and therefore, unlike information, it is aboutbeliefs and commitment. Second, knowledge is always about some end,which means that knowledge is about action. Third, it is context specific andrelational and therefore it is about meaning.

Individual Knowledge in Organizations

Knowledge exists at multiple levels within organizations. De Long andFahey (2000) divided it into individual, group, and organizational levels.Roos and von Krogh (1992) added the levels of departments and divisions.This article focuses on the most basic of these levels, the knowledge that ispossessed by individuals. Although individuals constitute only one level atwhich knowledge resides within organizations, the sharing of individualknowledge is imperative to the creation, dissemination, and management ofknowledge at all the other levels within an organization.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), in their definitive workThe KnowledgeCreating Company, were among the first to recognize the importance ofindividual employees in the knowledge creation process. According tothem, knowledge creation should be viewed as a process whereby knowl-edge held by individuals is amplified and internalized as part of an organi-zation’s knowledge base. Thus, knowledge is created through interactionbetween individuals at various levels in the organization. Nonaka andTakeuchi argued that organizations cannot create knowledge without indi-viduals, and unless individual knowledge is shared with other individualsand groups, the knowledge is likely to have limited impact on organizationaleffectiveness.




Lam (2000) defined individual knowledge as “that part of an organiza-tion’s knowledge which resides in the brains and bodily skills of the individ-ual” (p. 491). It involves all the knowledge possessed by the individual thatcan be applied independently to specific types of tasks and problems.Because individuals have cognitive limits in terms of storing and processinginformation, individual knowledge tends to be specialized and domain-specific in nature (Lam, 2000). Literature from the area of organizationallearning also contributes to the notion that knowledge in organizationsresides within individuals. Simon (1991) emphasized the role of individualsin the knowledge process by stating that “all organizational learning takesplace inside human heads” (p. 176). Argyris (1990) reinforced this point ofview by suggesting that organizations learn through individuals and thisindividual learning is facilitated or inhibited by factors within the organiza-tional learning system. Huber (1991) further argued that knowledge couldonly reside at the individual level because cognition is a function of individ-uals that cannot be performed by organizations.

At the individual level, Lowendahl, Revang, and Fosstenlokken (2001)identified three types of knowledge that are important to value creation inorganizations—know-how, know-what, and dispositional knowledge.Know-howincluded experienced-based knowledge that is subjective andtacit, andknow-whatincluded task-related knowledge that is objective innature.Dispositional knowledgewas defined as personal knowledge thatincluded talents, aptitude, and abilities. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001)further emphasized the role of individuals in the creation and sharing ofknowledge, while Polanyi (1966) insisted that all knowledge is essentiallypersonal in nature. Others who suggested that knowledge in organizations isfound at the level of individuals include Alvesson (1995), Brown and Wood-land (1999), Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), Nonaka (1994), Staples andJarvenpaa (2001), and Weiss (1999).

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations

An organization’s ability to effectively leverage its knowledge is highlydependent on its people, who actually create, share, and use the knowledge.Leveraging knowledge is only possible when people can share the knowl-edge they have and build on the knowledge of others. Knowledge sharing isbasically the act of making knowledge available to others within the orga-nization. Knowledge sharing between individuals is the process by whichknowledge held by an individual is converted into a form that can be under-stood, absorbed, and used by other individuals. The use of the termsharingimplies that this process of presenting individual knowledge in form thatcan be used by others involves some conscious action on the part of the indi-vidual who possesses the knowledge. Sharing also implies that the sender




does not relinquish ownership of the knowledge; instead, it results in jointownership of the knowledge between the sender and the recipient.

Davenport (1997) defined sharing as a voluntary act and distinguished itfrom reporting. Reporting involves the exchange of information based onsome routines or structured formats. Sharing, on the other hand, implies aconscious act by an individual who participates in the knowledge exchangeeven though there is no compulsion to do so. Hendriks (1999) suggested thatknowledge sharing implies a relationship between at least two parties—onethat possesses the knowledge and the other that acquires the knowledge.This article makes a distinction between knowledge sharing between indi-viduals and the concept ofknowledge transferused predominantly todescribe the movement of knowledge between larger entities within organi-zations, such as between departments or divisions and between organiza-tions themselves (e.g., Chakravarthy et al., 1999; Lam, 1997).

Knowledge sharing is important because it provides a link between theindividual and the organization by moving knowledge that resides with indi-viduals to the organizational level, where it is converted into economic andcompetitive value for the organization (Hendriks, 1999). Cohen andLevinthal (1990) proposed that interactions between individuals who pos-sess diverse and different knowledge enhance the organization’s ability toinnovate far beyond what any one individual can achieve. Boland andTenkasi (1995) concurred with this idea and contended that competitiveadvantage and product success in organizations results from individualswith diverse knowledge collaborating synergistically toward common out-comes. According to these authors, the creation of an organization’s knowl-edge base requires “a process of mutual perspective taking where distinctiveindividual knowledge is exchanged, evaluated, and integrated with that ofothers in the organization” (p. 358). Knowledge sharing also leads to thedissemination of innovative ideas and is considered critical to creativity andsubsequent innovation in organizations (Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, &Farris, 2001). However, in practice, the lack of knowledge sharing hasproved to be a major barrier to the effective management of knowledge inorganizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999).

Knowledge sharing between individuals is a process that contributes toboth individual and organizational learning (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000;Nidumolu, Subramani, & Aldrich, 2001). Organizational knowledge is rec-ognized as a key component of organizational learning (Dodgson, 1993;Huber, 1991). Huber (1991) further identified four knowledge concepts thatcontribute to organizational learning—knowledge acquisition, informationdistribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. Theconcept of knowledge sharing as it is presented in this article is linked toboth knowledge distribution and knowledge acquisition. The voluntary actof sharing knowledge by an individual contributes to knowledge distribu-




tion, and the process of sharing may result in knowledge acquisition byother individuals within the organization. Knowledge sharing between indi-viduals thus results in individual learning, which in turn may contribute toorganizational learning.

Knowledge management calls for managing organizational knowledgeas a corporate asset and harnessing knowledge creation and sharing as keyorganizational capabilities (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). A possible concernin this approach to managing knowledge is that much of organizationalknowledge is controlled at the level of individuals (Staples & Jarvenpaa,2001). Individuals use the knowledge they have in their daily activities atwork (Lam, 2000), and unless the organization can facilitate the sharing ofthis knowledge with others, it is likely to lose this knowledge when individ-ual employees leave (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Even if individualsstay with the organization, the full extent of their knowledge may not berealized and utilized unless there are opportunities for the individual toshare that knowledge with others in the organization (Weiss, 1999).

Understanding the process of knowledge sharing between individuals isone step toward a better understanding of knowledge sharing as a whole inorganizations. The following section elaborates on the factors identifiedfrom literature that influence knowledge sharing between individuals inorganizations.

Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing

There is a paucity of research specifically in the area of knowledge shar-ing between individuals in organizations, and empirical evidence has justbegun to uncover some of the complex dynamics that exist in processesrelated to knowledge sharing. Based on a review of theory and researchrelated to knowledge sharing, the following have been identified as themajor factors that influence knowledge sharing between individuals inorganizations: the nature of knowledge, motivation to share, opportunitiesto share, and the culture of the work environment.

Nature of Knowledge

Knowledge by its very nature exists in both tacit and explicit forms. How-ever, with the increasing recognition of the importance of knowledge inorganizations, different types of knowledge have also begun to be valueddifferently within organizations. These two characteristics of the nature ofknowledge, tacitness and explicitness of knowledge, and the value attrib-uted to knowledge have a significant influence on the way knowledge isshared within organizations.




Tacit and explicit knowledge. The dominant classification of knowledge inorganizations divides it into two types, tacit and explicit. The critical differ-ences between these two types are found in three major areas—codifiabilityand mechanisms for transfer, methods for acquisition and accumulation, andthe potential to be collected and distributed (Lam, 2000). The concept of tacitknowledge was first presented by Polanyi (1966), who argued that a large partof human knowledge cannot be articulated and made explicit easily. Tacitknowledge can be thought of as the know-how that is acquired through personalexperience (Nonaka, 1994). It is therefore not easily codifiable and cannot becommunicated or used without the individual who is the knower. Tacit knowl-edge also tends to be sticky in nature. von Hippel (1994) definedstickinessasthe incremental expenditure involved in moving knowledge in a form that isuseable and easily understood by the information seeker. According to vonHippel, stickiness for the knowledge supplier comes from the tacitness of theknowledge that has to be shared, whereas absorptive capacity creates stickinessfor the knowledge user. Therefore, tacitness of knowledge is a natural impedi-ment to the successful sharing of knowledge between individuals inorganizations.

Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be easily codified, stored at asingle location, and transferred across time and space independent of indi-viduals (Lam, 2000). It is easier to disseminate and communicate (Schulz,2001). Explicit knowledge therefore has a natural advantage over tacitknowledge in terms of its ability to be shared relatively easily among indi-viduals. However, just because explicit knowledge is easily transferredacross individuals and settings, it should not be assumed that it is easilyshared in organizations. Weiss (1999) argued that the ability to articulateknowledge should not be equated with its availability for use by others in theorganization. To support this point, he made a distinction between explicitknowledge that is easily shared with that which is not by introducing thenotion of rationalized knowledge and embedded knowledge within the con-text of professional services organizations.Rationalized knowledgeis gen-eral, context independent, standardized, and public (e.g., methodologies forconducting consulting projects). Weiss suggested that because this knowl-edge has been separated from its original source and is independent of spe-cific individuals, this knowledge is readily shared and available to all thosewho seek it.Embedded knowledge, on the other hand, is context dependent,narrowly applicable, personalized, and may be personally or professionallysensitive. Therefore, explicit knowledge that is embedded in nature is notlikely to be easily shared among individuals. However, knowledge must beseen as more than just explicit and tacit in nature. Regardless of whetherknowledge is tacit or explicit, the value attributed to it also has a significantimpact on whether and how individuals share it.




Value of knowledge. Knowledge is increasingly perceived as being com-mercially valuable, and its ownership is being recognized by both individualsand the organizations they work in (Brown & Woodland, 1999; Staples &Jarvenpaa, 2001; Weiss, 1999). When individuals perceive the knowledge theypossess as a valuable commodity, knowledge sharing becomes a process medi-ated by decisions about what knowledge to share, when to share, and who toshare it with (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). In situations in which it is valuedhighly, individuals may tend to claim emotional ownership of knowledge(Jones & Jordan, 1998). This sense of ownership comes from the fact that inseveral settings, individual knowledge is linked to status, career prospects, andindividual reputations (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). The sharing of suchknowledge is a complex process, and Jones and Jordan (1998) found that itinvolved, among other things, the extent to which individuals perceived them-selves to be valued by their organization.

Certain types of knowledge are valued highly by both individuals andorganizations. For example, knowledge related to research and develop-ment (R&D) is valued highly because of its commercial and scientific value.Research suggests that in R&D organizations, creative power resides in arelatively small number of individuals (Armbrecht et al., 2001), creatingissues of ownership particularly because it is linked to tangible outcomessuch as creation of new products, patents, research grants, and individualincomes. Therefore, in highly competitive environments or those in whichknowledge has high commercial value, there exists a dilemma resultingfrom contradictory incentives to share knowledge and to withhold it.

In organizations in which an individual’s knowledge becomes his or herprimary source of value to the firm, sharing this knowledge might poten-tially result in diminishing the value of the individual, creating a reluctanceto engage in knowledge-sharing activities (Alvesson, 1993; Empson, 2001).Professionals, in particular, tend to guard their knowledge as they perceivethat their own value to the firm is a product of the knowledge they possess(Weiss, 1999). Any reluctance to share knowledge is further heightened insituations characterized by uncertainties and insecurities, such as mergers(Empson, 2001) and acquisitions.

Motivation to Share

Knowledge is “intimately and inextricably bound with people’s egos andoccupations” and does not flow easily across the organization (Davenportet al., 1998, p. 45). According to Stenmark (2001), people are not likely toshare knowledge without strong personal motivation. Motivational factorsthat influence knowledge sharing between individuals can be divided intointernal and external factors.Internal factors include the perceived powerattached to the knowledge and the reciprocity that results from sharing.




External factors include relationship with the recipient and rewards forsharing.

Knowledge as power. The increasing importance given to knowledge inorganizations, and the increasing value attributed to individuals who possessthe right kind of knowledge are conducive to creating the notion of poweraround knowledge. If individuals perceive that power comes from the knowl-edge they possess, it is likely to lead to knowledge hoarding instead of knowl-edge sharing (Davenport, 1997; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). According toBrown and Woodland (1999), individuals use knowledge for both control anddefense. In a competitive environment, withholding knowledge from thoseconsidered competitors is often regarded as being useful to attaining one’sgoals (Pfeffer, 1980). Power politics is therefore an important aspect of knowl-edge sharing in organizations (Weiss, 1999).

In a study of knowledge management initiatives in more than 25 compa-nies over a period of 2 years, Davenport, Eccles, and Prusak (1992) foundthat the primary reason these initiatives did not succeed was because theseorganizations did not manage what the authors labeled “the politics of infor-mation” (p. 53). Blackler, Crump, and McDonald (1998) concurred with thenotion that knowledge can be perceived as a source of power in organiza-tions. They suggested that because knowledge is always situated within aparticular context, it is natural that culture and power dynamics within thecontext affect the way knowledge is perceived and used.

Reciprocity. Reciprocity, or the mutual give-and-take of knowledge canfacilitate knowledge sharing if individuals see that the value-add to themdepends on the extent to which they share their own knowledge with others(Hendriks, 1999; Weiss, 1999). Molm, Takahashi, and Peterson (2000) definedreciprocal acts as those in which individuals help others and share information“without negotiation of terms and without knowledge of whether or when theother will reciprocate” (p. 1396). Reciprocity as a motivator of knowledge shar-ing implies that individuals must be able to anticipate that sharing knowledgewill prove worthwhile (Schultz, 2001), even if they are uncertain about exactlywhat the outcome will be (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). It is the expectation thatthose involved in sharing knowledge will be able to acquire or benefit fromsome of the value created by their involvement.

Empirical evidence for the relationship between reciprocity and knowl-edge sharing indicates that receiving knowledge from others stimulates areciprocal flow of knowledge in the direction of the sender both horizontallyand vertically in organizations (Schulz, 2001). Support for the relationshipbetween reciprocity and knowledge sharing was also found by Hall (2001)and Dyer and Nobeoka (2000). Reciprocity is also thought to be a motivatorof knowledge sharing in communities of practice where knowledge sharingresults in enhancing participants’ expertise and providing opportunities forrecognition (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Orr, 1990).




A negative aspect of reciprocity is the fear of exploitation, which wasfound to be a serious threat to knowledge sharing between individuals(Empson, 2001). Fear of exploitation is a reflection of extreme anxiety thatindividuals experience when they perceive that they are being asked to giveaway valuable knowledge with very little or no benefit to them in return.

Relationship with recipient. One of the external factors that influence themotivation to share knowledge is the relationship between the sender and therecipient. Relationship with the recipient includes two critical elements: (a)trust and (b) the power and status of the recipient. According to Ghoshal andBartlett (1994), trust is one of four primary dimensions in organizations influ-encing the actions of individuals. Huemer, von Krogh, and Roos (1998) furtherargued that even though the distribution of power matters in organizations, trustis more important as trust facilitates learning, and decisions to exchange knowl-edge under certain conditions are based on trust.

In writing about knowledge communities (“groups or organizationswhose primary purpose is the development and promulgation of collectiveknowledge”), Kramer (1999, p. 163) referred to trust as being a critical fac-tor that influenced the way knowledge was shared within these communi-ties. According to Kramer, barriers to trust rise from perceptions that othersare not contributing equally to the community or that others might exploittheir own cooperative efforts. These doubts and suspicions create a reluc-tance to initiate exchanges with others or respond to others’ invitations toparticipate in cooperative exchanges with members of the community.

The importance of perceived trustworthiness to knowledge sharing inorganizations was further reinforced by Andrews and Delahaye (2000) whofound that the role of trust was central to the way knowledge was shared byindividuals. Their study established that in the absence of trust, formalknowledge-sharing practices were insufficient to encourage individuals toshare knowledge with others within the same work environment. Environ-ments that are highly competitive are even more likely to have problemswith knowledge sharing that arise out of trust-related issues. Others whostressed the importance of trust in knowledge sharing include Read (1962),Roberts (2000), and Zand (1972).

Another aspect of the relationship with knowledge recipients points tothe power and status of the knowledge sharer vis-à-vis the knowledge recip-ient. Issues of power that mediate the relationships between individualsinvolved in such exchanges influence to some extent whether and howknowledge is shared (Krone, Jablin, & Putnam, 1987; O’Reilly, 1978). Inhis analysis of organizational information processing, Huber (1982) statedthat (a) individuals with low status and power in the organization tend todirect information to those with more status and power, and (b) individualswith more status and power tend to direct information more toward theirpeers than toward those with low status and power. These findings find sup-




port in research done by Allen and Cohen (1969) and Barnlund and Harland(1963). Empirical evidence also indicates that individuals tend to screeninformation that is passed upward in organizations, withholding or refrain-ing from sharing information that would be unfavorable to the communica-tor (O’Reilly, 1978; Read, 1962) or that which would make them vulnerable(Weiss, 1999). Other research that supports this notion includes the social-psychological research on the suppression of bad news in communication(Rosen & Tesser, 1970) and research dealing with the suppression of infor-mation that reflects adversely on the units that possess the information(Carter, 1972).

Rewards for sharing. Real and perceived rewards and penalties for individu-als that come from sharing and not sharing knowledge also influence theknowledge-sharing process. O’Reilly and Pondy (1980) indicated that theprobability that organizational members will route information to other mem-bers is positively related to the rewards and negatively related to the penaltiesthat they expect to result from sharing. The relationship between knowledgesharing and incentives was further supported by studies (e.g., Gupta &Govindarajan, 2000; Quinn et al., 1996) finding that significant changes had tobe made in the incentive system to encourage individuals to share their knowl-edge, particularly through technology-based networks in organizations.Rewards have also been considered important to knowledge sharing withinintranets (Hall, 2001), in the creation and sustenance of knowledge-sharingnetworks (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000), and the success of knowledge-managementinitiatives within organizations (Earl, 2001; Liebowitz, 1999).

Although there are those who perceive rewards and incentives to be indis-pensable to knowledge sharing (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;O’Reilly & Pondy, 1980; Quinn et al., 1996), others have argued that tangi-ble rewards alone are not sufficient to motivate knowledge sharing amongindividuals. Professionals participate in knowledge-sharing activitiesbecause of the intrinsic reward that comes from the work itself (Tissen,Andriessen, & Deprez, 1998), and in some cases, formal rewards may beperceived as demeaning by professionals who are motivated by a sense ofinvolvement and contribution (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Yet othersargued against the use of incentives to share knowledge claiming that in thelong run, unless knowledge-sharing activities help employees meet theirown goals, tangible rewards alone will not help to sustain the system(O’Dell & Grayson, 1998).

Bartol and Srivastava (2002) proposed a relationship between differenttypes of knowledge sharing and monetary reward systems. They identifiedfour mechanisms of knowledge sharing—individual contribution to data-bases, formal interactions within and between teams, knowledge sharingacross work units, and knowledge sharing through informal interactions.Bartol and Srivastava suggested that monetary rewards could be instituted




to encourage knowledge sharing through the first three mechanisms,whereas informal knowledge sharing would be rewarded by intangibleincentives such as enhancing the expertise and recognition of individuals.

Opportunities to Share

Opportunities to share knowledge in organizations can be both formaland informal in nature. Formal opportunities include training programs,structured work teams, and technology-based systems that facilitate thesharing of knowledge. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) referred to these as“formal interactions,” and Rulke and Zaheer (2000) called them “purposivelearning channels”—those that are designed to explicitly acquire and dis-seminate knowledge. Informal opportunities include personal relationshipsand social networks that facilitate learning and the sharing of knowledge(Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Rulke and Zaheerreferred to these informal opportunities as “relational learning channels.”

Purposive learning channels provide individuals with a structured envi-ronment in which to share knowledge. Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002)identified some formal interventions that facilitate knowledge sharing inorganizations, from basic instructions to share knowledge, to more complexinterventions such as Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi Technique.Formal interventions and opportunities not only create a context in which toshare knowledge but also provide individuals with the tools necessary to doso. However, knowledge shared through formal channels tends to be mainlyexplicit in nature (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Rulke & Zaheer, 2000). Theadvantages of purposive learning channels are that they are able to connecta large number of individuals and they allow for the speedy disseminationof shared knowledge, especially through electronic networks and othertechnology-based systems. Empirical evidence for successful knowledgesharing through formal channels was found by Constant, Sproull, andKiesler (1996) and Hickins (1999).

Although purposive learning channels play an important role in facilitat-ing knowledge sharing, research indicates that the most amount of knowl-edge is shared in informal settings—through the relational learning chan-nels (e.g., Jones & Jordan, 1998; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999; Truran, 1998).Relational channels facilitate face-to-face communication, which allowsfor the building of trust, which in turn is critical to sharing knowledge.These informal opportunities to interact with other people help individualsdevelop respect and friendship, which influences their behavior (Nahapiet& Ghoshal, 1998). Granovetter (1992) called this “relational embedded-ness”—the kind of personal relationships that people develop when theyinteract with each other over a period of time. Brown and Duguid (1991), intheir analysis of communities of practice found that shared learning is




located in complex, collaborative practices involving informal networkswithin the community. Stevenson and Gilly (1991) found that even whenclearly designated channels of communication existed in organizations,individuals tend to rely more on informal relationships for communication.

Culture of the Work Environment

The factors described above are important to understanding the mannerin which knowledge is shared between individuals. However, all of thesefactors are influenced by the culture of the work environment—the cultureof the subunit and/or the culture of the organization at large. Organizationalculture is increasingly being recognized as a major barrier to effectiveknowledge creation, sharing, and use (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999). Organizations are essentially cul-tural entities (Cook & Yanow, 1993), and therefore, regardless of what orga-nizations do to manage knowledge, the influences of the organization’s cul-ture are much stronger (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001).

Schein (1985) defined culture as a “pattern of basic assumptions” (p. 9)that is developed by a group as they grapple with and develop solutions toeveryday problems. When these assumptions work well enough to be con-sidered valid, they are taught to new members as the appropriate way toapproach these problems. Schein further added that a key part of every cul-ture is a set of assumptions about how to determine or discover what is realand “how members of a group take an action, how they determine what is rel-evant information, and when they have enough of it, to determine whether toact and what to do” (p. 89). Culture is therefore reflected in the values,norms, and practices of the organization, where values are manifested innorms that in turn shape specific practices (De Long & Fahey, 2000).

De Long and Fahey (2000) identified certain aspects of organizationalculture that influence knowledge sharing—culture shapes assumptionsabout which knowledge is important, it controls the relationships betweenthe different levels of knowledge (organizational, group, and individual),and it creates the context for social interaction. It is also culture that deter-mines the norms regarding the distribution of knowledge between an orga-nization and the individuals in it (Staples & Jarvenpaa, 2001). Norms andpractices that advocate individual ownership of knowledge severely impedethe process of knowledge sharing within the organization, as the “organiza-tional culture orients the mindset and action of every employee” (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995, p. 167). Culture suggests what to do and what not to doregarding knowledge processing and communication in organizations(Davenport, 1997). An important component of culture in organizations iscorporate vision (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1995).Gold et al. (2001) pointed to the fact that a corporate vision not only pro-




vides a sense of purpose to the organization but also helps to create a systemof organizational values. Organizational values that influence knowledgesharing include the creation of a sense of involvement and contributionamong employees (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998), the types of knowledge thatare valued (Leonard-Barton, 1995), and knowledge-related values such astrust and openness (Eisenberg & Riley, 2001; von Krogh, 1998).

An organization’s culture also shapes the perceptions and behaviors of itsemployees (De Long & Fahey, 2000), and one way it does this is by estab-lishing the context for social interactions within the organization (Goldet al., 2001; Trice & Beyer, 1993). According to De Long and Fahey (2000),the impact of culture on the context for social interaction can be assessedalong three dimensions—vertical interactions (interactions with seniormanagement), horizontal interactions (interactions with individuals at thesame level in the organization), and special behaviors that promote knowl-edge sharing and use (sharing, teaching, and dealing with mistakes).

Cultures are not homogenous across an organization (McDermott &O’Dell, 2001). Within organizations, there are also subcultures that arecharacterized by a distinct set of values, norms and practices, often resultingin their members valuing knowledge differently from other groups withinthe same organization (Pentland, 1995). Subcultures and their influence onknowledge sharing add even more complexity to determining those prac-tices and norms that create the right environment to facilitate the sharing ofknowledge.

Figure 1 represents the factors identified from the literature that influ-ence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals in organiza-tions.

Relationship Between the FactorsThat Influence Knowledge Sharing

The four factors that have been identified are significant by themselvesbut do not exert their influence on knowledge sharing in isolation. Thenature of knowledge, the motivation to share, the opportunities to share, andthe culture of the work environment are all interconnected, with each factorinfluencing the other in a nonlinear fashion. Figure 2 represents a model ofknowledge sharing between individuals in organizations that emerged fromthe review of literature. The model presents the four factors and illustratesthe relationship between them.

The model indicates that the first three factors—nature of knowledge,motivation to share, and opportunities to share—are embedded within theculture of the work environment, be it the culture of the organization or thesubculture within the specific work area. Culture has an influence on theother three factors in that the culture of the organization dictates to a fairly





Purposive learning channels

Relational learning channels

Internal factors

Power

Reciprocity

External factors

Relationship with recipient

Rewards for sharing

Tacit & explicit knowledge

Value of knowledge

KnowledgeSharing

Nature ofKnowledge

Motivationto Share

Opportunitiesto Share

Culture of work environment

FIGURE 1: Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals inOrganizations

Knowledge Sharing

Nature ofKnowledge

Motivationto Share Opportunities to

Share

Individual

Individual Individual

Culture Culture

Culture

FIGURE 2: A Model of Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in Organizations



large extent how and what knowledge is valued, what kinds of relationshipsand rewards it encourages in relation to knowledge sharing, and the formaland informal opportunities that individuals have to share knowledge.

The following is one illustration of the interdependence between the fac-tors indicated in the model. Individuals may not be inclined to share knowl-edge easily if the value attributed to such knowledge is very high. However,if there are sufficient incentives (both internal and external), then individu-als may be motivated to share that knowledge. On the other hand, if there ismotivation to share knowledge but the opportunities to share are insufficientor if the culture of the organization attributes power to those who are per-ceived to possess certain knowledge, then the motivation by itself may notresult in real knowledge sharing.

All the factors identified in this model do not exert the same amount ofinfluence on knowledge sharing in all organizational settings. The relativeimportance of each of these factors is influenced by the business objectivesof the organization, its structure, business practices and policies, rewardsystems, and culture. The absence of one or more of these factors in an orga-nization does not preclude all knowledge sharing. A certain amount ofknowledge is shared between individuals all the time, under any circum-stance in organizations. However, the model of knowledge sharing pre-sented here proposes that the four factors are strongly interrelated with eachother and if each of these factors is favorable to knowledge sharing, togetherthey create the ideal environment for knowledge sharing between individu-als within the organization.

Implications for Research

With the increasing importance of the people perspective of knowledge inorganizations, there exist many opportunities for researchers in the area ofhuman resource development to advance the understanding of knowledge andknowledge sharing. The survey of literature that led to the creation of the modelof knowledge sharing presented in this article suggests opportunities forresearch that fall into the following two broad categories:

• research related to the nature of knowledge in organizations and• research related to the knowledge-sharing process and factors that influence this

process.

According to Bhatt (1998), the study of knowledge in organizations is still arelatively new area for research and lacks a coherent theoretical foundation. Thedifficulty in finding meaningful definitions and classifications of knowledgethat apply in all settings presents a significant challenge to researchers in thisarea. The following proposition captures a dilemma that tests both researchersand practitioners alike:




Proposition 1:The nature of knowledge in organizations is complex and variesacross different levels and functions in the organization. For an organization to besuccessful in managing its knowledge, there needs to be a common understandingof what constitutes knowledge across the organization.

The fact that there is as yet no shared understanding of what constitutesknowledge in the context of organizations raises some questions for futureresearch in this area. How should researchers define knowledge for empiricalstudies? Are the distinctions between knowledge and information worthy ofresearch attention?

The second category of research opportunities focuses on advancing theunderstanding of knowledge-sharing processes within organizations. The fol-lowing propositions are derived from the model presented in this article:

Proposition 2:The four factors critical to knowledge sharing between individualsin organizations are the nature of knowledge, the motivation to share, opportuni-ties for sharing, and the culture of the work environment.

Proposition 3:All four factors are interrelated and if each of them is favorable,together they create an optimal environment for knowledge sharing within anorganization.

Future research could also contribute to clarifying what we know about eachof the factors that are identified in the model as influencing knowledge sharing.

Proposition 4:Knowledge is perceived and valued differently by individuals atdifferent levels and across different functions in organizations. The differences inthe way knowledge is identified and valued have an impact on the way knowledgeis shared among individuals.

Proposition 5:Motivation to share knowledge is determined by a combination ofinternal and external factors. An ideal combination of these factors results in highmotivation among individuals to share what they know with others.

Proposition 6:Opportunities to share knowledge within organizations can be bothrelational and formal in nature. A balanced combination of relational and formallearning channels is critical to effective knowledge sharing.

Proposition 7:Culture of the work environment is the most critical factor thatinfluences knowledge sharing within organizations. The culture of the organiza-tion and subcultures within the organization have a significant influence on theother three factors.

With the rapid advances being made in the field of practice related toknowledge management, there is a significant gap between research and prac-tice in this area (Grover & Davenport, 2001). The increasing sophistication intechnology-based knowledge management systems call attention to one areawhere more research is needed. Existing literature suggests that individuals aremore likely to share knowledge with others through informal interactions than




through the use of formal systems. Scholars with a human resource orienta-tion need to partner with technologists to identify how formal and informalknowledge-sharing processes may be combined to effectively facilitate knowl-edge sharing in organizations. Research could also recommend how formalmeans of knowledge sharing such as training programs can be redesigned toboth share knowledge effectively as well as help individuals develop “ways ofknowing that make use of knowledge in new, innovative, and more productiveways” (Cook & Brown, 1999, p. 398).

In-depth investigative methods such as case studies and ethnographiescould be used to discover the nuances of the knowledge-sharing processwithin specific organizational settings. Such studies would also be able toidentify factors that motivate and inhibit knowledge-sharing behaviorwithin the contexts chosen for the study. Subsequent research could then bedone to verify whether these factors apply across organizations, using meth-ods that allow results to be generalized to larger populations. New researchin this area may also be able to identify emerging factors that influence theknowledge-sharing process that have not been documented in the literaturethus far.

Conclusion

It is clear that knowledge sharing in organizations is a complex processthat is value laden and driven by power equations within the organization.Knowledge in organizations is dynamic in nature and is dependent on socialrelationships between individuals for its creation, sharing, and use. Moreknowledge is shared informally than through formal channels, and much ofthe process is dependent on the culture of the work environment. This articlehas presented a model that describes knowledge sharing between individu-als, identifying factors that have a significant influence on the knowledge-sharing process and illustrating the relationship between these factors.

References

Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories.Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19.

Alvesson, M. (1993).Management of knowledge-intensive companies. New York: Walter de Gruyer.Alvesson, M. (1995). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with

ambiguity.Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 997-1015.Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowl-

edge management.Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018.Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational

learning: The psychological filter.Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 2322-2380.Armbrecht, F. M. R., Jr., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., & Farris, G. F. (2001). Knowledge man-

agement in research and development.Research Technology Management, 44(2), 28-48.Argyris, C. (1990).Integrating the individualand the organization. London:TransactionPublishing.




Barnlund, D. C., & Harland, C. (1963). Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communicationnetworks.Sociometry, 26, 466-479.

Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizationalreward systems.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-77.

Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A contin-gency perspective.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-55.

Bhatt, G. D. (1998). Managing knowledge through people.Knowledge and Process Management,5(3), 165-171.

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpreta-tion. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.

Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. (1998). Knowledge, organizations and competition. InG. von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.),Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing andmeasuring knowledge(pp. 67-86). London: Sage.

Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communitiesof knowing.Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward aunified view of working, learning, and innovation.Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Brown, R. B., & Woodland, M. J. (1999). Managing knowledge wisely: A case study in organiza-tional behavior.Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6(2), 175-198.

Carter, R. M. (1972).Communications in organizations: A guide to information sources. Detroit:Gale Research.

Chakravarthy, B., Zaheer, A., & Zaheer, S. (1999).Knowledge sharing in organizations: A fieldstudy. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Strategic Management Resource Center.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning andinnovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.

Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of elec-tronic weak ties for technical advice.Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.

Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999).Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between orga-nizational knowledge and organizational knowing.Organization Studies, 10(4), 381-400.

Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning.Journal of ManagementInquiry, 2(4), 373-390.

Davenport, T. H. (1997).Information ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management proj-

ects.Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.Davenport, T. H., Eccles, R. G., & Prusak, L. (1992, Fall). Information politics.Sloan Management

Review, pp. 53-65.Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998).Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they

know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.The

Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures.Organization Studies,

14(3), 375-394.Drucker, P. (1993).Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing

network: The Toyota case.Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345-367.Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Towards a taxonomy.Journal of Management

Information Systems, 18, 215-233.Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.),

The new handbookof organizationalcommunication(pp.291-322).ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Empson,L. (2001).Fear of exploitationand fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge trans-

fer in mergers between professional service firms.Human Relations, 54(7), 839-862.




Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: Thedimensionof qualitymanagement.Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Special Issue), 91-112.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational per-spective.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.

Gourlay, S. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD.Human Resource Development Inter-national, 4(1), 27-46.

Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles(Eds.),Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action(pp. 25-56). Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering aresearch agenda.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lessonsfrom Nucor Steel.Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71-80.

Hall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness:Motivating knowledge sharing across intranets.Journal of Infor-mation Science, 27(3), 139-146.

Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledgesharing.Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.

Hickins, M. (1999). Xerox shares its knowledge.Management Review, 88(8), 40-45.Huber, G. (1982). Organizational information systems: Determinants of their performance and

behavior.Management Science, 28(2), 138-155.Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.Organiza-

tion Science, 2(1), 88-115.Huemer, L., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Knowledge and the concept of trust. In G. von Krogh,

J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.),Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowl-edge(pp.123-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, P., & Jordan, J. (1998). Knowledge orientations and team effectiveness.International Journalof Technology Management, 16, 152-161.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replicationof technology.Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.

Kramer, R. M. (1999).Social uncertaintyand collective paranoia in knowledge communities:Think-ing and acting in the shadow of doubt. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.),Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge(pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krone, K. J., Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1987). Communication theory and organizational com-munication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter(Eds.),Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective(pp. 18-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lam, A. (1997). Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problem of collaboration and knowledgetransfer in global cooperative ventures.Organization Studies, 18(6), 973-996.

Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integratedframework.Organization Studies, 21(3), 487-513.

Leonard-Barton,D. (1995).Wellsprings of knowledge: Buildingand sustaining the source of innova-tion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lessard, D. R., & Zaheer, S. (1996). Breaking the silos: Distributed knowledge and strategicresponses to volatile exchange rates.Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 513-543.

Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge managementstrategy.Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1), 37-40.

Lowendahl, B. R., Revang, O., & Fosstenlokken, S. M. (2001).Knowledge and value creation in pro-fessional service firms: A framework for analysis.Human Relations, 54(7), 911-931.

McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver: Knowledge man-agement.California Management Review, 41(4), 103-117.




McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge.Journal ofKnowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.

Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000).Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimen-tal test of a classical proposition.American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396-1426.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advan-tage.Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

Nidumolu,S. R., Subramani, M., & Aldrich, A. (2001).Situated learning and the situated knowledgeweb: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management.Journal of Management Informa-tion Systems, 18(1), 115-150.

Nonaka, I. (1994). The dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science,5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).The knowledge creating company:How Japanesecompaniescre-ate the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. J. (1998).If only we knew what we know. New York: Free Press.Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal inter-

ventions enable flexibility.Organization Science, 13(4), 370-386.O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A

laboratory and field investigation.Human Relations, 31, 173-193.O’Reilly, C., & Pondy, L. (1980). Organizational communication. In S. Kerr (Ed.),Organizational

behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid.Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in a service culture.

In D. S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.),Collective remembering: Memory in society(pp. 169-189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough,H. (1999).Knowledge management in practice: An exploratorycase study.Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(3), 359-374.

Pemberton, M. J. (1998). Knowledge management (KM) and the epistemic tradition.Records Man-agement Quarterly, 32(3), 58-62.

Pentland, B. T. (1995). Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemologyof organizational knowledge systems.Accounting, Management and Information Technology,5(1), 1-21.

Pfeffer, J. (1980).Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.Polanyi, M. (1966).The tacit dimension. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect.Academy of Management

Executive, 10, 7-27.Read, W. M. (1962).Upward communication in industrial hierarchies.HumanRelations,15, 3-15.Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and commu-

nication technologies in knowledge transfer.Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,12(4), 429-443.

Roos, J., & von Krogh, G. (1992). Figuring out your competence configuration.European Manage-ment Journal, 10(4), 422-444.

Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUMeffect.Sociometry, 33(3), 253-263.

Rulke, D. L., & Zaheer, S. (2000). Shared and unshared transactive knowledge in complex organiza-tions: An exploratory study. In Z. Shapira & T. Lant (Eds.),Organizational cognition: Computa-tion and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schein, E. H. (1985).Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schultz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge

flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681.Simon, H. A. (1991).Bounded rationality and organizational learning.OrganizationScience,2, 125-

134.Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview.Strategic Management

Journal, 17, 5-9.




Staples, S. D., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership ofinformation and expertise.Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 151-183.

Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge.Journal of Management Informa-tion Systems, 17(3), 9-24.

Stevenson, W. B., & Gilly, M. C. (1991). Information processing and problem solving: The migra-tion of problems through formal positions and networks of ties.Academy of Management Jour-nal, 34(4), 918-928.

Stewart, T. A. (1997).Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: DoubledayCurrency.

Tissen, R., Andriesson, D., & Deprez, L. F. (1998).Value-based knowledge management: Creatingthe 21st century company: Knowledge intensive, people rich.Amsterdam: Addison-WesleyLongman.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993).The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Truran, W. R. (1998). Pathways for knowledge: How companies learn through people.EngineeringManagement Journal, 10(4), 15-20.

Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge?Journal of ManagementStudies, 38(7), 973-993.

von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for inno-vation.Management Science, 40, 429-430.

von Krogh,G. (1998).Care in knowledge creation.CaliforniaManagement Review,40(3), 133-153.Venzin, M., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Future research into knowledge management. In G. R.

von Krogh, R. Johan, & D. Kleine (Eds.),Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and mea-suring Knowledge(pp. 26-66). London: Sage.

Weiss, L. (1999). Collection and connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in professional ser-vice.Organization Development Journal, 17(4), 61-72.

Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving.Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.

Minu Ipe recently completed a Ph.D. specializing in human resource develop-ment from the University of Minnesota. She has been involved with both thetechnology and people aspects of knowledge management for several years,first as an HRD manager and then as a student and researcher. Her interestsinclude knowledge mapping, knowledge processes within and across teams,cross-cultural issues related to knowledge management, and organizationallearning.




Documents

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework