In this zone, we critically discuss the concept of knowledge management and evaluate whether an organisation, in reality, can manage the knowledge of its workforce.
Over the past two decades, discourse and debate regarding the importance of knowledge and knowledge management within the post-industrial economy has gained momentum. The shift in paradigm from land, capital and labour to knowledge as the fourth factor of production46 has transferred the focus from manufacture (production with the hands) to mentofacture (production with the mind47) and catalysed the realisation that knowledge is an intangible, commoditable asset that can yield sustainable competitive advantages for organisations.48 Brinkley49 and DiMattia and Oder50 posit that the emergence and development of knowledge management has been influenced by three significant changes in the business environment. First, globalisation opened up markets and enabled the internationalisation of knowledge-based industries, such as education, research and development (R&D) and IT services.
It created a global marketplace for knowledge workers and the utilisation of their specialist knowledge, skills and expertise to innovate new products, services and processes. Second, the drive for organisational ‘leanness and meanness’ in the 1980s and 90s led to a raft of downsizing activities, resulting in the exodus of specialist and operational knowledge, leading to major knowledge and skills gaps.51 To mitigate against this, many organisations implemented knowledge management strategies such as codification,52 in a bid to capture tacit knowledge and transform it into explicit, tangible formats (e.g. documents, blueprints and reports), to retain the knowledge for future use.
Third, technological advancements in information and communication technologies (ICT), such as the internet, intranets and enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems,53, 54 have helped to service the proliferation of geographically dispersed and networked organisations and the necessity to disseminate explicit knowledge to those who need it, when they need it, regardless of time zones and location.50 Theorists attest that the roots of knowledge management are firmly embedded in a multiplicity of diverse disciplines, ranging from organisational theory to anthropology and management strategy.55 Over the years, a wide theoretical foundation has served to stimulate considerable debate within these fields and enabled a better understanding of how knowledge is created, stored, retrieved, shared and applied within organisations.56 However, Jashapara57 caveats that managerial uncertainty still pervades as to what knowledge management is all about and whether it can, in reality, be implemented as a strategy to manage intangible assets. In an attempt to address this uncertainty, it is necessary to first explore the nature of knowledge.
The quest for knowledge and how it can be managed is an old one. It has been at the forefront of human thought since the beginning of time and debated by classic Greek philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle and twentieth century thinkers such as Polanyi58 and Ryle.59 Simply defined, knowledge is ‘information that changes something or somebody, either by becoming grounds for actions or by making an individual (or institution) capable of different or more effective action’ (Drucker: 24).60 Both Drucker and Nonaka and Takeuchi61 relate knowledge to human action and change through the medium and utilisation of information. Davenport and Prusak,62 however, view knowledge as a fluid mixture of framed experiences that are, essentially, socially constructed and originated and applied in the minds of knowers. Expert insight, which is a key constituent of knowledge, is tacit in nature and, over time, is consciously and subconsciously embedded in documents, repositories (e.g.
knowledge management systems or intranets) and the organisation’s routines, practices, norms and processes.
63 In essence, knowledge forms a major part of the organisation’s cultural fabric and helps to shape its identity to its members, the business community and society at large. Classic examples of this are knowledge-
based organisations such as Google, Microsoft and Apple, who are recognised not only for the goods and services they offer to consumers and businesses but also for the vast knowledge base of their workforce, whose specialist knowledge is, without doubt, commoditised for competitive advantage.
The definitions proffered by Drucker and Davenport and Prusak raise arguments and debates about whether knowledge exists independently of individuals;
whether, metaphorically, the individual is knowledge64 and whether knowledge is something individuals have or something they do.65 Delving deeper within this debate, two competing perspectives are unearthed: objectivist and practice-based,66 both of which have implications for knowledge management and organisational behaviour in the workplace.
In this debate, knowledge is perceived as an object or commodity that individuals possess. Knowledge exists independently in their minds and can thus be ‘objectified’ through externalisation61 and transferred and commoditised intra and inter-organisationally.67 As knowledge is seen as a collection of objective facts, both knowledge and understanding can be developed that are free from individual subjectivity and bias.
From this perspective, knowledge is embedded in practice and thus cannot be separated from human action, to which Drucker and Nonaka and Takeuchi allude. Instead of being regarded as something people have, as in the objectivist perspective, Blackler65 attests that knowledge becomes knowing, as it is embodied in and carried, taught, passed on and used and misused by people.60 As knowing is socially constructed, subjective and influenced by a multiplicity of personal and organisational experiences that have developed over time, it can never be bias free and cannot, wholly, be separated from the knower and objectified into explicit knowledge. This, then, poses further questions whether knowledge is capable of being managed.
The concept of knowledge management can be defined from two approaches, hard and soft,68 which reflect the objectivist and practice-based perspectives explored above. First, hard knowledge management refers to a process of knowledge creation, capture,X dissemination and utilisation, via ICT,69 to enhance the organisation’s performance. The focus here is on the adoption of a codification strategy,52 which externalises tacit knowledge that has been disembodied from knowers, and objectified into explicit formats. Second, soft knowledge management is, one could argue, more humanist than the hard approach because it focuses on developing and motivating knowledge workers and keeping their tacit knowledge and expertise in a ‘state of fluid gestation’ (Schulz and Jobe:
144)70 through the deployment of a personalisation strategy.52 This enables knowledge workers to socialise61 and interact with other experts face to face, in, for example, a community of practice.71 To conclude, based on the discussions presented, it could be argued that an organisation, in reality, cannot, wholly, manage the knowledge of its workforce, due, in part, to the highly tacit, subjective, socially constructed, personal and idiosyncratic nature of knowledge and knowing.63, 72 Bordum73 proffers that the notion of ‘managing knowledge’ becomes problematic when we consider that managers experience a reversal of the ‘knowledge—power’ relationship in situations where they have to manage experts and specialists in their field, who may be more knowledgeable and thus be perceived to have a greater level of power. Bordum argues that organisations may turn this potential negative into a positive by codifying specialist knowledge into explicit formats and embedding it into procedures, processes and activities, which may serve to not only reduce an organisation’s reliance on knowledge workers but also redress the perceived power imbalance. He caveats that managers must not forget that ‘there is always a (tacit) basis of knowing the knowledge, which cannot be managed’

As Cook and Brown74 contend ‘tacit knowledge cannot be turned into explicit knowledge, nor can explicit knowledge be turned into tacit’. This paradox has additional implications for managing knowledge and, indeed, organisational behaviour in the workplace, as organisations must consider implementing an infrastructure that underpins the deployment of codification and personalisation (hybrid)
knowledge management strategies and developing a culture that supports the creation, sharing and utilisation of explicit and tacit knowledge for competitive advantage.

1.Theorists espouse that the advent of globalisation, downsizing and rapid technological advances catalysed the emergence and development of knowledge management. With reference to literature and practical examples, what other twentieth and twenty-first century changes have influenced the concept?

2.Compare and contrast the objectivist and practice-based perspectives of knowledge. What implications do they have for hard and soft knowledge management?

3.Theory and practice suggest that knowledge and knowing cannot, in reality, be wholly separated or managed. Critically evaluate the implications of this for organisational behaviour in the workplace.