Management Learning 2013 Obembe 355 72

http://mlq.sagepub.com/Management Learning

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/44/4/355The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1350507612450988 2013 44: 355 originally published online 2 July 2012Management Learning

Demola ObembeKnowledge sharing, sustained relationships and the habitus

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Management LearningAdditional services and information for

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

http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

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

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

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/44/4/355.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 2, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 21, 2013Version of Record >>

at UNICAMP /BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL on February 11, 2014mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNICAMP /BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL on February 11, 2014mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Management Learning44(4) 355 372

The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1350507612450988

mlq.sagepub.com

Knowledge sharing, sustained relationships and the habitus

Demola ObembeDe Montfort University, UK

AbstractThis article explores knowledge-sharing tendencies among individuals in a UK project-based organization. While the knowledge management literature extensively considers the significant impact of relationships and trust on sharing knowledge, the underlying reasoning behind individual choices to share knowledge and expertise largely remains an underexplored area. Bourdieus conception of the habitus is used as an alternative tool to interpret individual dynamics and their propensity for sharing knowledge given their personal relationships. Data are drawn from in-depth interviews conducted across the organization and presented as a narrative indicative of relationship dynamics of individual actors. The findings suggest that individual predisposition towards knowledge sharing is influenced by experiences in sustained relationships, coupled with awareness of knowledge sources, expectations of reciprocity in relationships, and acceptance into social groups. Particularly, the predisposing nature of the habitus serves as guide to location and utilization of knowledge sources as well as on choices to share personal knowledge.

KeywordsKnowledge sharing, habitus, trust, actor relationships, dispositions

Introduction

Over the past two decades, there has been a proliferation in considerations of knowledge and knowledge management as a phenomenon (Hislop, 2009). Yet, from a theoretical viewpoint, researchers are still attempting to develop unifying theories on how organizational knowledge is created and shared (Nonaka and von Krogh, 2009). From a praxis perspective, social theorists have also made significant contributions to articulating the impact of social interaction on knowledge sharing at a collective level of analysis considering relationships among organizations (Dyer and Hatch, 2006; Hansen, 2002) and to a lesser extent, the relationships between organizations and individual employees (Agndal and Nilsson, 2006; Antonacopoulou, 2006).

Knowledge sharing as a significant element of the grand knowledge management construct is one that is quite well reviewed in existing research (Obembe, 2010). Furthermore, the relationship

Corresponding author:Demola Obembe, Leicester Business School, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK. Email: [email protected]

450988 MLQ0010.1177/1350507612450988ObembeManagement Learning2012

Article

at UNICAMP /BIBLIOTECA CENTRAL on February 11, 2014mlq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

356 Management Learning 44(4)

between knowledge sharing and actor relationships has also been explored at great length, particularly in relation to the concept of trust (cf. Newell and Swan, 2000; Politis, 2003; Willem and Scarbrough, 2006). Much of the literature in this area tends to specify trust and related relational concepts such as reputation and mutual understanding as playing a crucial role in understanding the knowledge-sharing processes. For instance, Levin et al. (2006) identified a correlation between trust and social interaction as a basis for the development of trust.

For Miztal (1996: 24), to trust means to hold some expectations about something future or contingent or to have some belief as to how another person will perform on some future occa-sion. She further suggests that it is an omnipresent but problematic concept one that constitutes an aspect of all social relationships but which is plagued with multiplicity of interpretations. The complexity of trust as a concept can be attributed to its many conceptualizations from its oldest connotation as an article of faith, in which instance it describes the non-rational and incalculable elements of relationships with expectations as to the performance of certain duties such as in religions, to its conceptualization as a psychological trait of personality as well as property of individuals, social relationships and/or social systems (Miztal, 1996).

The sociological viewpoint on trust particularly suggests that trust is an element of cooperative exchanges such as manifest in reciprocal and transitive relationships (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003). In both types of relationships, individuals become predisposed towards the actions of others towards them in order to promote consistency, either directly or through third parties. That is, such indi-viduals will strive to maintain balance whereby the degree of attraction or aversion multiplies to give seemingly positive outcomes. In this regard, trust proves a significant determinant of choices on how to act in social relationships and therefore can impact individual predispositions to share knowledge.

Levin et al. (2006) further noted that the propensity for individuals to trust sources of knowledge is also affected by relationship length. Renzl (2008) also contributes to the trust and knowledge-sharing literature by outlining the role of trust in knowledge sharing through improving knowledge documentation and reducing fear of loss of uniqueness. She noted for instance, that where a trust atmosphere prevails, individuals are able to move beyond mere ability to articulate knowledge, to a greater extent of willingness to share. Mooradian et al. (2006) further argue that knowledge sharing is an overt behavioural outcome of interpersonal trust and much of the trust literature expresses this view of trust as fostering knowledge shar-ing (see also, Dirks and Ferrin, 2001).

For example, Zarraga and Bonache (2005) argue for mutual trust as a dimension facilitating both knowledge transfer and creation among team members. Pee et al. (2010) further note that a lack of mutual trust in relationships can pose considerable challenges for knowledge sharing, and that knowledge-sharing behaviours are often determined by perceptions rather than objective assessments. Staples and Webster (2008) on the other hand explored task interdependences and trust in knowledge-sharing relationships. They particularly view task interdependence as a struc-tural factor capable of changing the influence of trust in knowledge-sharing relationships, and argue that where there is high task interdependence among individuals, there would be a weak relationship between trust and knowledge sharing, and vice versa.

Although existing research presents a compelling argument for the important role of trust in knowledge-sharing relationships, there is insufficient elaboration in many of these instances on the underlying dynamics of trust and how it enables knowledge to be shared (Lucas, 2005). Whilst relational aspects of the organizational social climate such as trust may serve as key mechanisms for knowledge exchange (see Collins and Smith, 2006), they do not clarify the underlying rea-sons for individual choices. There is therefore a need to devise alternative means of exploring the bases for these choices.


Obembe 357

Miztal (1996) explores the relationship between trust and the habitus by considering the role of habits in trust relationships. She opines that the habitus is one of three mechanisms by which trust is manifested, the others being passion and policy. Trust as habitus, she argues, is a protective mechanism relying on everyday routines, stable reputations and tacit memories, which together push out of modern life fear and uncertainty as well as moral problems (Miztal, 1996: 102). This suggests that habitual practices arise from unreflective or taken-for-granted attitudes and that habits are significant in sustaining perceptions of social order.

If habits, as Miztal subsequently refers to the habitus, are to be regarded as a continuum of practices and dispositions to action, we can see a commonality between her interpretation of habits and Bourdieus conception of the habitus. For Miztal, habits suggest routine behaviour as habitual action reaffirms predictability of order, helps re-order ambiguous aspects of given contexts and thus facilitates trust relationships. Bourdieu (1977), however, describes the habitus as a system of dispositions which not only designates a way of being but also expresses the structuring of the mind and representation of resultant action or routine behaviour. Miztals reference to the habitus as habits would thus suggest a simplified consideration of a complex concept, but one that gives meaning to and provides a basis for understanding trust relationship dynamics.

Gherardi (2000) further offers a glimpse into the importance of the habitus for how knowledge is shared, noting that practical knowledge, which she describes as knowledge guiding individual decision-making choices is situated within the habitus. Hence, given its predisposing tendencies the habitus helps us to gain better insight into the reasoning of individuals when it comes to how they chose to share knowledge. It is in this regard that the concept is being used as an analytic tool, as it makes it possible to gain a richer depth of insight and understanding of the guiding principles behind the dispositions of individuals in knowledge-sharing decisions.

The article first outlines the significance of knowledge-sharing practices in actor relationships, as well as of the role of the habitus in understanding such relationships at the individual and col-lective levels. This is followed by a description of the research methodology and thematic narration of the findings from the case study organization. The data are subsequently analysed and discussed using the habitus lens. Finally in the conclusions, implications for both research and managerial practice are suggested.

Actor relationships and knowledge-sharing practice

Many researchers have attempted to clearly articulate the motives behind knowledge-sharing behaviours. Koulikovs (2011) review of the knowledge-sharing literature reveals that knowledge sharing is not only driven by individual personality traits but also by the reputation of knowledge transferors as well as expectations of acknowledgement by originators.

Yun and Allyn (2005) also explored the causes of knowledge-sharing behaviour among employ-ees and proposed that such behaviours are influenced by organizational concern motives, the need for task interdependence, and prosocial value motives. In the first instance, individuals may share knowledge because of their pride and commitment to the organization, but as Von Krogh (1998) showed, such commitment is itself necessitated by the level of organizational care shown towards the employees.

Yun and Allyn (2005) further argued that individuals may share knowledge in order to better coordinate their work activities and to enhance their self-image and impress others. This is a view supported by Koulikov (2011) who noted that a major reason why knowledge sharing fails is the dilemma that exists in the interplay between sharing for the public good and individual payoffs. There is, however, no consensus on individual motivations for knowledge sharing. Whilst Bock et al. (2005) conclude that anticipated extrinsic rewards exert a negative effect on individual



sharing attitudes Obembe (2010) argues that individuals are equally prone to selfless altruism in making knowledge-sharing decisions.

Szulanski (1996) presents an alternative view to understanding barriers to knowledge shar-ing by arguing that the most important impediments to knowledge transfer within firms are knowledge-related factors such as lack of absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity, and arduous relationship between source and recipient. With regards to knowledge relationships however, he notes that to some extent intimacy or strength of ties between knowledge sources and recipients may determine the success of knowledge-sharing practices. This is particularly so where the knowledge has tacit components. Although Granovetter (1973) originally argued that weak ties, characterized by distant and infrequent relationships, are better suited for knowledge sharing due to absence of redundancies, Hansen (1999) makes a distinction between knowledge complexity and relationship ties that would facilitate their sharing, to which end weak ties are good for sharing less complex knowledge whereas increased knowledge complexity would require strong relationship ties for effective sharing.

Lahti and Beyerlein (2000) further argue that knowledge sharing is the most important of all knowledge management constructs and a plausible reason for this can be traced back to the very nature of knowledge itself. Over the years, many researchers have defined and presented different perspectives on knowledge. For instance, Tsoukas and Vladimirous (2001) extensive review allows us to categorize knowledge into three themes; knowledge as material entity, knowledge as abstract conception and knowledge as social phenomenon.

On the one hand, considerations of knowledge as both an intellectual and material resource have resulted in increased attempts to commodify it (Cuff et al., 1998). Newell et al. (2009), however, argue that views commoditizing knowledge are of minimal practical benefit as they reveal little about the processes of its creation and exchange across different contexts.

A similar view is expressed about the second categorization which tends to reflect a structural perspective of knowledge. Much of the knowledge literature in this regard has its source in Polanyis (1967) seminal work, in which the attribution of knowledge as an abstract concept is explored in relation to its tacit nature he discussed the tacitness of knowledge as know-how possessed by individuals or groups, which the possessors have varying capacities to articulate and express. Other researchers have since made a distinction between two widely acknowledged forms of knowledge, explicit and tacit knowledge (Collins, 2010; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Schulz, 2008; Smith, 2001; Spender, 2008). The distinctions predominantly arise from their sources and the manner in which they are transferred or shared. Explicit knowledge referring to knowledge that is codified or codifiable, structured, and readily accessible to individuals other than the originators and as such is easy to transfer (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Purvis et al., 2001). Tacit knowledge is, however, described as knowledge that is personal, context specific, hard to articulate and communicate, and most likely to be acquired through experience because it is inextricably woven with the experiences and situational contexts within which it is generated (Von Krogh et al., 2000).

The third categorization of knowledge as social phenomenon lays more emphasis on its dynamic, equivocal and context-dependent nature, which suggests deeper levels of complexity to making sense of the process by which knowledge might be shared (Newell et al., 2009). The exchange of knowledge and learning is regarded as a social process and not just individual action, but one in which individual knowledge provides building blocks for the generation of collective knowledge (Chiva and Alegre, 2005; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This aspect of knowledge and knowledge sharing is particularly explored in the practice literature, which considers a practice-based approach to knowing and learning, in which regard social practice acts as a link between


Obembe 359

what we know and how we do in social settings (cf. Gherardi, 2001; Newell and Galliers, 2006; Nicolini et al., 2003; Orlikowski, 2002).

Blacklers (1995) contribution to the knowledge-sharing literature is particularly significant as he reviewed studies of organizational knowledge and proposed that whilst at the individual level, knowledge could be embrained (conceptual and reliant on cognitive abilities) or embodied, at the collective level knowledge is encultured (based on shared understanding) or embedded in systemic routines all of which can be more or less explicit. Similarly, Spender (1996) argued that concern should extend beyond understanding knowledge types to considerations of knowledge ontology, to which end he distinguished between individual and collective knowledge and proposed a frame-work identifying knowledge as conscious, automatic, objectified or collective, which represent varying combinations of tacit/explicit and individual/social dimensions of knowledge.

From the foregoing, we can deduce that the accepted meanings of knowledge, its nature of existence, and manner of conversion can change with individuals and collectives based on their experiences as well as prevailing contexts. The nature of relationships individuals maintain (task or non-task related) can therefore have significant implications for how knowledge is shared (Agndal and Nilsson, 2006). It is also conceivable that both task-related and social rela-tionships may overlap to allow for sharing knowledge of a professional and non-professional nature. This is more so as the development of relationships is largely viewed as a cumulative process. It follows that by maintaining such relationships, actors gain experiences which may come to bear on their knowledge-sharing practices. Invariably, the process and practice per-spectives suggest that knowledge may be developed and shared through a concerted process arising from interactions between individuals or groups to the extent that actors can acquire new knowledge by tapping into knowledge bases and experiences of others (Mooradian et al., 2006; Tagliaventi and Mattarelli, 2006).

According to Conway et al. (2001), knowledge sharing in sustained relationships is contingent on developing appropriate relationships that can facilitate the knowledge flow. However, for effec-tive knowledge sharing to take place, recipients would also be expected to have an appropriate level of awareness of their knowledge requirement, location of knowledge sources within their networks, as well as to strike a balance in maintaining their relationships (Kilduff and Tsai, 2003).

Beyond lack of awareness, Newell et al. (2006) also noted that incorrect perceptions of the usefulness of knowledge by potential users of shared knowledge is a key reason why individuals do not take advantage of knowledge acquired in prior experiences. As such, where social relation-ships provide possible contexts for knowledge sharing and there is awareness of the inherent value of such relationships, individuals would be expected to reciprocate one anothers actions and even ensure that third party relationships do not adversely affect their sustained relationships. At the organizational level this further raises the possibility that understanding the dynamics guiding individual actions in knowledge-sharing decisions will better equip organizations to demonstrate a greater level of care and from a managerialist perspective to get the best out of the employees (Von Krogh, 1998).

The habitus: Providing insight into actor relationships

The habitus essentially explains a socially constituted cognitive capacity of agents and the impact of their beliefs and dispositions in fields of practice (Bourdieu, 1986). The proposition in this article is that the habitus acts as both a conceptual and an analytical tool for understanding the dynamics of individual predispositions and action in their knowledge-sharing choices. In order to



understand the role of the habitus in this regard, it is expedient to first articulate its theoretical conception. Bourdieu (1977) by grounding his theoretical ideologies in lived experiences, made it possible to envisage scenarios where the habitus offers potentially important benefit for under-standing of social and organizational learning processes through movement from theoretical abstractions to praxis. Von Krogh et al. (2000) further outlined the relation between the habitus and practice by stating that not only does the habitus produce practice, it also allows for the appreciation of practice by providing a context and space for generating knowledge.

From a descriptive viewpoint, the habitus explains the relationship between historical past and the nature of actors. According to Bourdieu (1977), the past is represented by historical experi-ences, which become deeply rooted within individuals. Although established through objective structures, such experiences have the capability to subjectively influence present and future choices. It is in this regard that the habitus is described as that which one has acquired, but which has become durably incorporated in the body in the form of permanent dispositions (Bourdieu, 1993: 86), thus allowing for it to be reflexive. This reflexive ability of the habitus essentially arises from its hysteresis effect, whereby the impacts of actions or outcomes lag behind the causal factor (King, 2000).

Bourdieu (1977) explains that the habitus, through its hysteresis effect, acts as a bridge-gap between objective and cognitive structures, which links opportunities and the dispositions to grasp them. In this regard he argues that the habitus integrates past experiences as a matrix of percep-tions, appreciations and actions that subsequently predispose individuals in their decision-making processes. Whereas the habitus, as sets of dispositions, develops in fields of practice, which repre-sent competitive arenas within which individuals operate and that range from the family setup to the more complex organization or community setup, individuals will still be more conditioned to their own fields (Bourdieu, 1993). As such the introduction of individuals into new fields, new organizations for example, does not negate the conditioning of prior experiences; rather the habitus is still able to reflect on these experiences in determining alternative courses of action.

Also, by accounting for cognition, the habitus further allows one to grasp how the intangible may result in visibly identifiable effects, thus providing a basis for explaining causal interactions between feelings and structural/material action. The habitus can thus be regarded as a sociological alternative for understanding commonsense cognition, and the tendency for individual actors to employ personal experience in making choices. As Everett (2002) explains, the capacity of the habitus to act in this role is due to its subjection to influences over time that either reinforce or modify the early perceptions individuals develop in their relationships.

Individual and group representations of the habitus

Perhaps one of the most important attributes of the habitus is its representation in both individual and group forms. Bourdieu highlights the fact that individuals are endowed with a personal habi-tus, but also belong to social groups which have a group habitus distinct from that of the individual (Bourdieu, 1990a: 59). Bourdieu explained the development of a group habitus as arising from the likelihood for members of the same group to be confronted by similar situations at a higher fre-quency than with individuals from other groups. An immediate empirical significance of the group habitus is apparent when we consider Von Kroghs (1998) work on organizational care, in which he argues that individuals exhibit one of four dispositions dependent on the nature of relationships in the organization, and which impact knowledge generation and sharing. Because collectives develop a group habitus based on common experiences and ways of doing things, we begin to see how certain individual behaviours can arise in response to/or in line with prevalent social action.


Obembe 361

Bourdieu used the context of communities to explain the relationship between the individual and group habitus, in which case individuals are exposed from childhood to collective dispositions through manifestations of external necessity. These include gender-based division of labour, household objects, modes of consumption, and parent-child relations, all of which contribute to the structuring of the individual habitus thereby constituting the basis by which subsequent experiences are perceived and appreciated (Bourdieu, 1977; 1990a).

Essentially, at the onset, the group habitus informs the individual habitus, which in turn informs individual predispositions in subsequent experiences. As the habitus develops through personal experiences over time and possible exposure to different social contexts, one can expect variations in individual experiences to contribute to developing a unique individual habitus. However, as Strauss and Quinn (1997) noted, there is a mutual influence between the individual and group habitus due to the possible iteration of experiences which allow the two to inform one another.

From the foregoing evaluation, one can surmise that the utility of the habitus as a concept for understanding actor relationships stems from the fact that it allows one to study conscious consid-erations of individual actors given their underlying ingrained experiences. By taking individual cognition into account, the habitus also provides interpretation of how quasi-conscious considera-tions manifest in visibly identifiable effects. Furthermore, although the habitus is incorporated in the body of actors and is chronologically perpetuated, it is also constantly subjected to diverse experiences that result in its reinforcement or modification (Bourdieu, 1993; Everett, 2002).

Finally, by constructing the habitus as a system of dispositions that one acquires, and which functions as categories of perception and assessment as well as organizing principles of action it becomes possible to understand the role of individuals in constructing and utilizing available resources such as knowledge (Bourdieu, 1990b). The habitus can thus provide an understanding of the connection between individuals identifying with collectives and resources available in relation-ships within such collective contexts (Everett, 2002). It is in this regard that the concept is being utilized as an analytical tool in addressing the central research question of: What are the underlying factors that influence individual knowledge-sharing tendencies?

Methodology

The empirical study on which this article is based was an exploratory, single case study of a major UK construction organization Construct Co. The data represent part of a wider dataset, some aspects of which have been published elsewhere but not reproduced here (see Obembe, 2010, which evaluates independent data relating to employees contravening management directives). The study aimed at understanding the dynamics entailed in individual knowledge-sharing deci-sions, hence the unit of analysis was the individual. Data collection was by in-depth interviews, essentially focusing on relationships, interactions and networks, of 27 respondents identified by snowball sampling technique (see Table 1).

It is worth reiterating that the objective of this research was to explore the reasoning behind individual choices on sharing their knowledge in relationships maintained with others. As the research focused on manifestations of individual predispositions in practice, the in-depth interview technique was deemed most valuable. This choice was based on research precedence as previous research on the habitus has primarily used this technique (McDonough, 2006; Mutch, 2003), cou-pled with the limitation of prolonged access constraints that precluded such techniques as ethnog-raphy or observation. Use of in-depth interviews also allowed respondents to be reflective and provide wide-ranging data through storytelling.



Each interview commenced with an explanation of the research objective to the respondents and averaged 45 minutes. The interviews were guided using a schedule that included questions around respondents past and sustained relationships in the workplace, social networking as well as factors affecting knowledge-sharing activities.

The data were manually coded by the author in a two-stage coding process (see Table 2). The 14 initial codes were consolidated into seven in order to avoid too many levels, which according to King (2004) could be counter-productive during interpretation. Specifically, coding discrepan-cies were avoided through a systematic series of research and theory-led coding sequence. Interviews were reviewed to identify recurrent themes, research-oriented codes were devised based on emergent themes, and these were further grouped into specific categories. Additional codes were generated based on review of the existing knowledge-sharing and related literatures and relevant quotes from the initial research-based coding were consolidated to yield parameters used in the analysis. Aspects of the initial coding emanated from the social theory (e.g. social capi-tal, cultural capital, ownership of capital) and network literatures (e.g. reciprocity, networks), and others arose from the data (e.g. time/distance effect, basis for sharing).

Table 1. Distribution of respondents.

Location Site description (number of respondents interviewed)

London/Greater London: Corporate office (2) Project site I (3) Project site II (4)North England: Facilities management (5)East of England: Technology centre (2)Wales: Regional office (6) Project site (5)

Table 2. Consolidated data codes.

Consolidated categories Initial code categories

1. Effect of past experiences on resolves to share Reciprocity Past relationships/relationship benefits2. Past relationships as possible knowledge store Social capital Social interaction Knowledge as a political tool/resource3. Impact of individual attitudes on sharing Personality-related issues4. Role played by organizational environment in

ensuring sharing culture NetworkWorkplace dependence

5. Prevailing culture within organization and amongst individuals

Cultural capital/cultural background

6. Perceptions of knowledge as complementary Context-base of process knowledge Ownership of capital

7. Reasoning behind individual actions to share Basis for sharing Basis for respect Time/distance effect


Obembe 363

The findings below are structured as narratives along four themes using representative quotes. These represent illustrative events depicting how individual interaction is affected by experiences gathered in time and how these inform personal views on how individuals choose to share their know-how and expertise, within the organizational setting.

Individual experiences and personal dispositions

Empirical evidence from respondents suggested that personal dispositions of individuals within existing relationships could result from awareness of the expertise possessed by others from previ-ous working relationships:

My background [in engineering department] gives me benefit, I know the guys who are the technical people, I know John, I know Cathy , so I know them personally, which makes it that much easier I know their capabilities, I know whether its worth going to them and speaking about it. (Design Manager I)

There were also indications that resolves to share knowledge could be determined by individu-als personal experiences and by virtue of the background to which individuals were exposed. This is viewed as possibly influencing the way dispositions are shaped:

Any information I have, Ill share with anybody. Thats how I have people ringing me up every day for information. Ill stop what Im doing and Ive got no problems doing that. (Repair Technician)

Further enquiry revealed some respondents develop perceptions of others as a result of previous experiences which determine their subsequent interactions. These experiences result in respond-ents forming either positive or negative opinions of individuals in their relationships, which deter-mine their predisposition towards seeking knowledge from such individuals. For example, when asked what factors may affect knowledge sharing, a respondent commented:

Trust I suppose, thats the key. If you speak to someone trustworthy and what he says is just and true, no problem. But then if you speak to somebody who tells you its night when its daytime then sometimes you just dont take them on board. [Some] do it for their own personal gain but they dont realise that after a while people actually work them out and say well, you dont tell me the truth anyway, so I wont tell you the truth either. (Contracts Team Member)

Here, one observes a tendency for respondents dispositions to be influenced by the perceived nature of interactions with others. The notion that individuals share their knowledge or manipulate others is then crucial in the way individuals relate to those who aid or manipulate them. The latter could lead to estrangement, whereby respondents (sub-)consciously choose to refrain from subse-quent interaction with significant others as a consequence of prior experience. This could also drive recipients to source information elsewhere, as noted in the following quotes:

Some people withhold information and tell you at the last minute or tell you in front of a crowd of large people so that theyd look good I get quite frustrated! [next time] Id get the information elsewhere. (Quantity Surveyor I)

They probably wouldnt go to Steve or Paul, the guys have gone through that route before, theyve sent emails theyve spoken to them both and they had absolutely nothing back whatsoever. Sometimes no



response at all, sometimes a response that isnt the right response to the person asking the question I think people feel they can talk to me because Ive made that offer [to share and help]. (Contracts Manager)

Where estrangement does not occur, there may be cautious interaction with individuals per-ceived to have dealt in a less than honest manner with respondents, which may lead to situations where knowledge that would normally be shared freely is transacted:

Ive been in situations where Ive done something with somebody and they take the credit for all of it as if theyve done the work but really youve done all the work, I find that quite frustrating because you dont get the credit but I know that I did it next time I would take something for it in an attempt to show that its my work. (Quantity Surveyor I)

Finally, one observes that where relationships between individuals had been favourable, actions that might otherwise count as unwillingness to assist may be insufficient to change individuals dispositions. Not only is it possible for individuals to have unchanged mindsets, they may also find reasons to justify others inability to assist:

Anne said, You can come to me, if they are all busy come to me I went to Anne for help and she didnt really give me anything at all. The outcome still isnt finished as yet but I will say that Anne has been off ill for the last few days, so she hasnt been there the whole time, but thats because shes had things pre-booked. I can go to Anne and Ive been to her on a lot of things when the other guys were busy or didnt know and shes really good, she helps me out a lot. (Team Leader)

From the above, Design manager Is comments suggest that developing relationships within a collective is crucial to creating awareness of experiences of others and predisposing one to seek knowledge from such others. This implies the resultant relationship from individuals having engaged in common practice brings about a sense of identity which registers in the individuals cognition. Here, the individual habitus identifies with previous encounters due to recognition of resources individuals possess coupled with the common identity and interactivity they once shared. As such where relationships have been sustained, these have the capability to act as potential knowledge sources. In this way, the habitus of prospective recipients serves as a mapping for loca-tion of expertise and affords the recipients opportunity to take advantage of extant relationships as knowledge sources.

Two instances demonstrate the varying impact of the reinforcing process of the individual habitus and dispositions in terms of current resolve. The first shows how negative reinforcement of actions results in negative outcome and may bring about a conscious tendency for transferors to transact the expertise they possess or seek alternative knowledge sources (Von Krogh, 1998). In essence, where past experiences of individuals are unfavourable, these experiences are rein-forced in the habitus thereby contributing to the seemingly negative resolve concerning actions of others.

On the other hand, the findings show that negative experiences could still result in a positive outlook for individuals subjected to the experience. That is, the occurrence of one-off contrary acts may not change one individuals disposition to another. This is explained due to positively rein-forced experiences in the individuals habitus, through sustained relationships, which may allow individuals to discount one-off experiences as uncharacteristic and thereby not result in a sway of existing dispositions.


Obembe 365

Friendship ties

In addition to experiences and dispositions, the nature of friendship ties, personal likes/dislikes, was viewed to play an important role in knowledge-sharing decisions. The findings indicate that the decision to share may be guided by considerations of how recipients in a relationship might act if roles were reversed and by dispositions to the recipients:

If I like the person, then Ill assist them more, if I dont like the person Ill probably find a lot of other reasons not to do the work for them If I like them, then obviously the reason is that Ill be more helpful to them because Ill probably see them on another situation where theyll help me out. If I dont like them I know that they probably wont do the same for me, so why should I do it for them in the first place? (Commercial Team Member)

I should have no reason for not sharing, unless Ive got personal dislike to you, which shouldnt come into it anyway. You can see how it would with certain individuals, and if such exist, youd be averse to share. (Repair Technician)

When asked if there were concerns with sharing knowledge with friends, a typical response was:

No! As long as hes your friend, youre more likely to speak to him on things like that. Whereas if [its] someone you dont know very well, then you maybe want to keep it more to yourself. (Assistant Engineer)

Notably where relationships are perceivably distant or there is inadequate knowledge of others, caution may be displayed in relating with such individuals. However, as the following comment suggests, a cautious attitude often simply results from lack of acceptance into particular social groups. Once there is acceptance, there may be less caution about sharing expertise:

When I came here, there were people who had been working in the lab group for a number of years [Initially there was] apprehension about how youre going to interact with them and how youre going to affect their day to day working life I guess when people get to know you, they accept you that developed over a period of time because the more things I did, the more they could see that there were some things I knew and I did have a certain degree of competency and skills and knowledge so now we have got a good relationship. (Technical Service Member)

The view that the propensity to share may be guided by personal likes or dislikes demonstrates how relational elements such as identity and interactivity, may favourably predispose individuals to one another. Relationships invariably generate expectations of reciprocal behaviour which incline individuals to share in positive relationships. What the habitus does is to set the context within which relationships are reviewed and decisions taken (Von Krogh et al., 2000). That is, individuals form opinions of others, based on experiences and encounters. These are reflections of the individual habitus that is informed by previous engagements which allow individuals to position others within a mapped field of relationships.

We also observe the possibility for exclusionary tendencies which can be explained due to the prevalence of a group habitus common to members of a collective (Bourdieu, 1990a). Where new entrants exhibit dispositions in line with the group habitus, the likelihood for acceptance increases. Acceptance is thus a consequence of common identity arising from the group habitus and it is this that allows for knowledge sharing through interaction and mutual bestowing among the members of the grouping (Von Krogh, 1998).



One would expect that the more involved individuals become in a series of activities, the greater the likelihood of acceptance and identity with others involved in similar activities. The group habi-tus thus promotes a sense of camaraderie which registers with the individual habitus, allowing individuals to map relationship structures and identify knowledge-sharing opportunities.

Sustained relationships as knowledge depositories

The third theme explored in this article is the value of relationships in serving as knowledge depos-itories. It was observed that the effects of individuals past on knowledge sharing is not limited to the impact of experiences; where relationships were maintained for significant periods of time, the relationship structure served as a depository for process knowledge. This was evident in relation to contacts maintained with colleagues:

If I have a problem I know someone else has dealt with on a previous project, then Ill probably give them a call and theyll be able to help me out in a big way. (Commercial Team Member)

Respondents identified clearly defined links between sustained relationships and the ability of such relationships to act as source of knowledge:

The main impact [of sustained relationships] is actually furthering and gathering of knowledge into a database, an active database, which you have at the back of your mind. So thats experience Ive used before Obviously, if its been a good experience, you will tend to reuse the information. (Design Manager I)

Also, the nature of the relationship experience and context are ones that invariably influence whether or not one chooses to take advantage of such relationships. As an engineer noted of two project managers who were sometimes difficult and un-cooperative:

When youre working with them, I wouldnt think twice about contacting them but now that were not together, I would probably choose some different route. (Civil Engineer)

The ability to draw on sustained relationships as knowledge sources arises from the awareness that individual experiences accumulate with time and that ones personal experiences can be reflected upon to address ongoing issues. However, where gaps exist in an individuals knowledge base, the individual is able to revert to colleagues with whom relationships had been sustained, as alternate sources of required knowledge. In this instance, individual experiences allow the habitus to map which relationships could yield the knowledge required to address specific issues. The habitus is thus able to map relationships as repositories for knowledge and to identify potentially helpful individuals as the need arises.

Organizational commitment to bonding and relationship building

Another contributory factor to individuals sharing dispositions was the organizations com-mitment to facilitating a sharing culture, which was continuously communicated to employees and demonstrated through provision of opportunities for personal development, and an ena-bling environment for social interaction. The organization was particularly viewed as having teamwork as its hallmark:


Obembe 367

They encourage people to bond. A graduate engineer who starts with the company will go on training and bonding courses. Maybe theyll go on a skiing trip or canoe trip or trekking, so they can bond together, so that friendship will last throughout their career. (Deputy Project Manager)

We have nights out paid for by Construct Co., they give us a lump sum which is divided into twelve months and then each month we have set figures we can use to go out. (Customer Relations Team Leader)

Also, the nature of the industry is such that there is a constant flux of employees from one pro-ject to another, hence presenting opportunities for networking and developing relationships for accentuating existing knowledge and acquiring new knowledge:

every now and then I get a call from somebody or phone somebody else to say I need a bit of information on a past project or you know somebodys got some particular skills on some things, so having known those names that, you may not speak to for a year at a time, but its just having them in the background. you physically move around so much. Site teams are quite small-knit communities, our interactions with other site teams is not massive, but as this project ends, this team will be broken and some people may go together but people may go to other projects and work for other people. (Project Director)

To foster effective networking amongst its employees, the organization further established a role for connecting various individuals to the appropriate sources of required knowledge:

Im interactive with the sites, I dont deal with the enquiries myself, I pass them to the people that I think are best suited to deal with them. my role is one of interfacing between sites and technology. I spend quite a lot of my time in regional offices. So, in a way I can have quite informal dialogue with planners, estimators, project managers from across a broad spectrum. (Technical Service Group Manager)

It was observed that the forums provide the opportunity for members with similar interests to come together and share their job experiences thus providing an environment for knowledge shar-ing and developing relationships among members:

I think things such as the design managers forum is very constructive, youre getting like-minded people together , its an opportunity to exchange ideas, find new ways of working and improving the way we work, I think that is quite positive generally. (Design Manager II)

We have a conference which brings project managers together, and thats as much social as it is working and its very good from the point of view of keeping contact with people you dont see very often. thats quite useful because you never know what will come out of that [relating with others]. You havent seen somebody for a while and you find out theyre working on something that has a bearing on you, you find yourself two days later phoning them up to discuss it further. (Project Director)

From the organizations perspective, commitment to enabling a sharing culture is predomi-nantly demonstrated through active promotion of a teamwork culture, networking, and develop-ment of self-governing forums, all of which may foster relationship building. The forums not only allowed for interactivity and mutual engagement of individuals but also bestowed a sense of identity on the members. In addition, the forums presented an avenue for the individual actors to share best practices and knowledge. Here we see the role of the group habitus in facilitating a common culture, the continued exposure to which could have a reinforcing impact on the individual habitus.



Interestingly, because the organization operates in project-based environments, group cohesion is sustained at the organizational level. Whilst individuals identify with specific projects in the shorter term, they are more inclined to identify with the organization in the long run. Also, due to inter-project movements, the group habitus constantly reinforces established relationships. Individuals are thus able to reactivate defunct networks, consolidate existing ones and develop new networks thereby increasing the potential sources of knowledge available to them.

Discussion and conclusion

Although existing literature supports the view that individual and collective relationships influ-ence knowledge-sharing choices, it does not articulate how and why relationship experiences influence knowledge sharing. In contributing to this gap in the literature, the findings in this article explore four themes that have been researched to varying degrees: personal dispositions based on experience, friendship ties, organization commitment and care, and relationships as knowledge depositories. The article, however, uses the habitus as an analytic lens for understanding the underlying reasons behind the dynamics in knowledge-sharing relationships.

Considering the role of relationships in knowledge-sharing dispositions, a significant finding was that repetition of experiences is required to alter individual dispositions. This was demon-strated by the varying impact of reinforcement of the habitus on choices of how individuals perceive potential knowledge sources. Notably, interactions resulting from common practice among individuals become ingrained in their cognition (Blackler, 1995). An expected outcome was for actions to produce corresponding dispositions, for instance, negatively reinforcing actions in relationships registering with the habitus and predisposing individuals to either seek alternative knowledge sources or transact their knowledge (Von Krogh, 1998). However, an important finding was the fact that negative experiences could still result in positive outlook, the occurrence of which is attributable to the hysteretic quality of the habitus allowing residual impacts of experiences to be ingrained in individual mindsets (King, 2000). This is in contrast to existing views of relationship dynamics which suggest possible ease of loss of confidence where relationship conditions are adversely varied (Lucas, 2005; Willem and Scarbrough, 2006).

Second, with regards to friendship ties, it is apparent that the propensity for knowledge sharing extends beyond the strength of exiting ties (Hansen, 1999; Szulanski, 1996); rather it is often guided by personal likes and dislikes to parties in sustained relationships. Coupled to this, how-ever, is that reciprocal expectations among individuals promote knowledge sharing as well as acceptance into groups. Where new entrants exhibit dispositions that are congruent with those of the group, acceptance occurs more readily. In essence, increased acquaintanceship not only cre-ates acceptance but also allows for identification with an individuals degree of competency, skills, and knowledge possessed. This is highly feasible given the ability of the group habitus to create a commonality among members of similar social groups, thereby creating a platform for the flow of knowledge (Bourdieu, 1990a; Tagliaventi and Mattarelli, 2006).

Also, the value of relationships in acting as knowledge depositories is explained by the capac-ity of the habitus to enable a lagging impact of experiences to create a cognitive map of where useful process knowledge may be situated (Bourdieu, 1977; King, 2000). Where relationships are sustained, these invariably act as knowledge depositories for recipients. That is, the habitus of individuals map out potential sources of expertise and afford the opportunity to exploit such knowledge sources. As such, another key contribution from the analysis is that because individual dispositions are constantly reinforced or modified by ensuing experiences, individuals are inclined to take decisions on why, and with whom to share (and equally significant, refrain from sharing)


Obembe 369

knowledge, based on accumulated experiences that are set in their dispositions as opposed to one-off experiences. The hysteretic quality of the habitus in effect provides a plausible explanation to why respondents may still utilize knowledge sources even in unfavourable relationships and contexts.

Furthermore, this article has attempted to outline how the collective, represented by the overall organization, influences knowledge-sharing dispositions, as the group habitus especially facilitates a common identity among work groups. Due to the nature of the organization as one in which work is carried out in project environments, the evidence suggested a greater tendency for individuals to affiliate more with the organization as a whole than with specific projects. The reason for this is attributable to the mobility across projects, which in turn allows the project and its participants to identify more with the organization, given the common disposition facilitated by the group habitus. This is another key contribution as it marks a deviation from the popularly held view that the nature of the project environment may stifle the generation of knowledge (Newell et al., 2006).

In conclusion, the intention of this article has been to develop richer insight into the causal interactions that allow individual relationships to influence knowledge-sharing choices through the use of the habitus. To this end, the article demonstrates that sustained experiences and expec-tations of individuals within relationships are crucial to the knowledge-sharing process due to the predisposing nature of their habitus, which causes individuals to act in set ways when making knowledge-sharing decisions. The article also has implications for managerial practice, because the habitus is subject to reinforcements and modifications, where management proactively encourages relationship development amongst its workforce; this can help foster a common sense of identity and invariably predispose individuals within the organization to be more willing to share their knowledge. Finally, whilst the article also makes methodological contribution to the knowledge and learning literature in its use of the habitus as a tool for understanding knowledge-sharing dynamics, it is important to recognize that there are some limitations to the research. These are the limited scope afforded by a single case study, and the use of the individual as unit of analysis in relation to gaining insight on the collective perspective. There is therefore scope for future research to undertake systematic analyses of both individuals and collectives in more gen-eralized relationship contexts and build on the understanding of individual knowledge-sharing dispositions.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial of not-for-profit sectors.

References

Agndal H and Nilsson U (2006) Generation of human and structural capital: Lessons from knowledge man-agement. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 4(2): 9198. Available at: http://www.ejkm.com/volume4/issue2 (accessed 21 September 2011).

Antonacopoulou EP (2006) The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning 37(4): 455473.

Blackler F (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16(6): 10211046.

Bock G-W, Zmud RW, Kim Y-G, et al. (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly 29(1): 87111.

Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. R Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, pp. 241258.

Bourdieu P (1990a) The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu P (1990b) In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu P (1993) Sociology in Question. Trans. R Nice. London: SAGE.Chiva R and Alegre J (2005) Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: Towards the integration

of two approaches. Management Learning 36(1): 4968.Collins CJ and Smith KG (2006) Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource

practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management 49(3): 544560.Collins HM (2010) Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Conway S, Jones O and Steward F (2001) Realising the potential of the network perspective in researching

social interaction and innovation. In: Jones O, Conway S and Steward F (eds) Social Interaction and Organisational Change. London: Imperial College Press, pp. 349366.

Cuff EC, Sharrock WW and Francis DW (1998) Perspectives in Sociology. London: Routledge.Dirks KT and Ferrin DL (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science 12(4):

450467.Dyer JH and Hatch NW (2006) Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating

advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal 27(8): 701719.Everett J (2002) Organizational research and the praxeology of Pierre Bourdieu. Organizational Research

Methods 5(1): 5680.Gherardi S (2000) Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization 7(2):

211223.Gherardi S (2001) From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Human Relations 54(1): 131139.Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 13601380.Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organiza-

tion subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1): 82111.Hansen MT (2002) Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies.

Organization Science 13(3): 232248.Hislop D (2009) Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical Introduction. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Kilduff M and Tsai W (2003) Social Networks and Organizations. London: SAGE.King A (2000) Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A practical critique of the habitus. Sociological

Theory 18(3): 417433.King N (2004) Using templates in the thematic analyses of text. In: Cassell C and Symon G (eds) Essential

Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: SAGE, pp. 256270.Koulikov M (2011) Emerging problems in knowledge sharing and the three new ethics of knowledge transfer.

Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal 3(2): 237250.Lahti RK and Beyerlein MM (2000) Knowledge transfer in management consulting: A look at the firm.

Business Horizons 43(1): 6574.Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Leonard D and Sensiper S (1998) The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management

Review 40(3): 112131.Levin DZ, Whitener EM and Cross R (2006) Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating

impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(5): 11631171.Lucas LM (2005) The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge

Management 9(4): 87101.


Obembe 371

McDonough P (2006) Habitus and the practice of public services. Work, Employment and Society 20(4): 629647.

Miztal BA (1996) Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Basis of Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mooradian T, Renzl B and Matzler K (2006) Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learning 37(4): 523540.

Mutch A (2003) Communities of practice and habitus: A critique. Organization Studies 24(3): 383401.Newell S and Galliers RD (2006) Facilitating or inhibiting knowing in practice. European Journal of

Information Systems 15(5): 441445.Newell S and Swan J (2000) Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human Relations 53(10): 12871327.Newell S, Bresnen M, Edelman L, et al. (2006) Sharing knowledge across projects: Limits to ICT-led project

review practices. Management Learning 37(2): 167185.Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H et al. (2009) Managing Knowledge Work and Innovation. 2nd edn.

Hampshire: Palgrave.Nicolini D, Gherardi S and Yanow D (2003) Toward a practice-based view of knowing and learning in

organizations. In: Nicolini D, Gherardi S and Yanow D (eds) Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach. New York: Sharpe, pp. 331.

Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.Nonaka I and Von Krogh G (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advance-

ment in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science 20(3): 635652.Obembe D (2010) Understanding individual action: When employees contravene management directives to

foster knowledge sharing. Management Research Review 33(6): 656666.Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing.

Organization Science 13(3): 249273.Pee LG, Kankanhalli A and Kim, H-W (2010) Knowledge sharing in information systems development: A

social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 11(10): 550575.Polanyi M (1967) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Politis JD (2003) The connection between trust and knowledge management: What are its implications for

team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(5): 5556.Purvis RL, Sambamurthy V and Zmud RW (2001) The assimilation of knowledge platforms in organisations:

An empirical investigation. Organization Science 12(2): 117135.Renzl B (2008) Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge

documentation. Omega: The International Journal of Management Science 36(2): 206220.Schulz K-P (2008) Shared knowledge and understandings in organizations: Its development and impact in

organizational learning processes. Management Learning 39(4): 457473.Smith EA (2001) The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge

Management 5(4): 311321.Spender J-C (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management

Journal 17(S2): 4562.Spender J-C (2008) Organizational learning and knowledge management: Whence and whither? Management

Learning 39(2): 159176.Staples DS and Webster J (2008) Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on

knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal 18(6): 617640.Strauss C and Quinn N (1997) A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm.

Strategic Management Journal 17(1): 2743.



Tagliaventi MR and Mattarelli E (2006) The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups. Human Relations 59(3): 291319.

Tsoukas H and Vladimirou E (2001) What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies 38(7): 973993.

Von Krogh G (1998) Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review 40(3): 133153.Von Krogh G, Ichijo K and Nonaka I (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation. New York: Oxford University

Press.Willem A and Scarbrough H (2006) Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: An exploratory

study. Human Relations 59(10): 13431370.Yun S And Allyn MR (2005) Causes of knowledge sharing behaviors: Motivational/functional approach.

Journal of Business and Economics 3(1): 8892.Zarraga C and Bonache J (2005) The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self-managed

teams. Organization Studies 26(5): 661681.


Management Learning 2013 Obembe 355 72

Documents

Transcript of Management Learning 2013 Obembe 355 72