Diverse Knowledge Constructs

Introduction

Knowledge may be constructed differently within different disciplines; this is because the vocabulary and language may itself be different for different disciplines (Martin, 2013). This would also mean that for individuals and organisations, knowledge and knowledge management would be based on the nature of the organisation or the objectives for attaining knowledge. It is also important to distinguish between learning and knowledge, which may sound similar but are significantly different from each other as knowledge is the content that the organisation or the individual possesses, while learning is the process for acquiring knowledge (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011). This essay critically evaluates what I understand by knowledge and knowledge management practices at individual and organisational levels.

Knowledge management has now emerged as one of the concerns for organisations all over the world; economists have also termed knowledge as the fourth form of production, while earlier only three forms of materials, labour and capital were recognised (Wilson, & Catell, 2005, p. 111). For all the importance that knowledge seems to be regarded in by economists, organisations, and individuals, there is also a concern that there is as yet no universally accepted definition of knowledge or as Martin (2013) puts it, “what seems to be missing is awareness of what knowledge is, how it is organised” (p. 34). One of the issues that may be relevant to not having a universal understanding of knowledge may be that knowledge may be constructed subjectively and language and power words may be used to construct knowledge in certain disciplines. For individuals, this may mean that what we think as knowledge or the ‘truth’ may be our perception of the truth influenced by a dominant language. Nevertheless, it can be stated that knowledge is important to the development of both individuals and organisations.

The significance of knowledge to organisations and firms has come to be acknowledged in scholarship on knowledge management over a period of time. Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2011) note that since 1963 when the first reference to organisational learning was made by Cyert and March, the field of organisational learning (OL) and knowledge management (KM) has evolved significantly. This field of organisational learning and knowledge management is characterised by diversity and specialisation of the field (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011). This can be related back to the point made in the earlier paragraph that knowledge may be constructed differently in different fields because of different vocabulary and language (Martin, 2013). At the same time, there is also some commonality in the field of knowledge management (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011). With respect to the topic at hand, that is, knowledge management practices for individuals and organisations, it may be mentioned that some distinction is maintained between organisational knowledge and knowledge management. The former relates to the understanding and conceptualisation of the nature of knowledge contained within organisations where distinctions between individual and organisational knowledge may be drawn out (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011). Knowledge management adopts a more technical approach as compared to the approach adopted for organisational knowledge (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011). In this essay, we are concerned with the topic of knowledge management and therefore, the emphasis is on the ways in which the measuring, disseminating, storing, and leveraging of knowledge can be done for the purpose of enhancing organisational performance (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011).

As mentioned earlier, knowledge is the content that the organisation or the individual possesses while learning is the process for acquiring this content (Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2011). Therefore, it can be argued that knowledge management may also include learning processes because these are the methods that can be used by the individual or the organisation to acquire knowledge. In this context, one of the methods that can be involved in knowledge management of the organisation is the training practices as this is the way in which the organisation will be able to optimise their knowledge base and acquire content for the firm. The process of training has become important within companies as can be seen from the fact that major companies have created departments with the exclusive function of enployees’ training and development (Werner & DeSimone, 2011). While training and development is universally recognised as one of the best practices for organisational knowledge development, as it is a part of the HR strategies, these strategies may be affected by contextual contingencies (Boxall & Purcell, 2000). Therefore, how knowledge is managed in organisations may differ from one to the other.

Training processes themselves can include different processes like the process of socialisation, which can be used by the organisation to transfer knowledge within the firm; this may be useful for transferring down of knowledge from the master to the apprentice in a way that is termed as tacit to tacit transfer (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Another process that may be involved for the purpose of transferring knowledge from one person to the other within the firm can be articulation, which is also termed as tacit to explicit method of transferring knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). These processes are more relevant to the organisation rather than the individual because these involve an interest or concern in transferring knowledge within the organisation for the purpose of optimising the knowledge base within the firm itself. A process that may be used by the firm and the individual is a process of combination that sees one person combining or integrating their knowledge in a way that is termed as explicit to explicit method; this process can be used by the individual and the organisation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). A fourth process, which is also relevant to individual as it is to an organisation is the process of internalization, which can be used by the both the individual and the organisation to internalize the knowledge through explicitly shared knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Individuals and organisations may have different processes for acquiring knowledge as is evident from the paragraph above where the essay discussed briefly four processes, two of which can be used by individuals to enhance their knowledge through the method of training. There are other methods for acquiring knowledge by both individuals and organisations. One of the methods is prescribed by Maslow (1943) through his theory of motivation, which uses motivation for the development as oneself as a way for enhancing the desire of an individual to gain knowledge. Maslow (1943) writes that motivation for self-esteem provides a basis for personal development processes for individuals that can be undertaken within organisations, stating:

“All people in our society (with a few pathological exceptions) have a need or desire for a stable, firmly based, (usually) high evaluation of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the esteem of others. By firmly based self-esteem, we mean that which is soundly based upon real capacity, achievement and respect from others” (Maslow, 1943).

Acquiring of knowledge can be linked to the motivation theory because an individual may be motivated to learn and develop their personal and professional skills further so as enhance their own personal development possibilities. This is applicable to individuals wanting to enhance their knowledge on their own or as part of an organisation. Within organisations, employees can be motivated to undertake the development of their skills and abilities so that they can achieve growth and attain better esteem.

Individuals can be motivated to gain knowledge; however, individual factors like age may play a role in how an individual approaches knowledge and learning as highlighted by Greenhaus’ five stages of career development which supports the position of training of individuals in an organisation especially for the employees in the age group of 25 to 40 years (Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2009). The theory of age playing an important role in individual approaches to learning and knowledge acquisition is also supported by the Levinson’s Seasons of Life theory or the ‘Levinson model’, which emphasises on the different periods in an individual’s life which can mark periods of transitions; this provides that during the early 20s and 30s, an individual is in a transition when they go through processes of reappraisal (Levinson, 1978). In the mid to late 30s the transition is of the nature that the individual becomes concerned about establishing a place for themselves in work and family and also to achieve something in the material sense of the term (Levinson, 1978). This may also see an individual wanting to acquire knowledge for the sake of personal development. This may be seen as something that is useful for motivating the individual to acquire knowledge in their given field for the purpose of attaining their personal and professional goals and in that sense it can also be related to the Maslow (1943) theory.

Knowledge management promotes the “creation, capturing, sharing and application” of the knowledge of the organisation (Becerra-Fernandez & Leidner, 2008, p. 1). This can be taken to be an important statement because it highlights the point that an organisation may be able to create knowledge and also share and apply it within the organisation. As the discussion above was concerned with the ways in which knowledge can be optimised within the organisation. The four methods that were explained by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) can be related to this point as these methods are concerned with the facilitation of sharing of knowledge in some ways through methods that internalise, externalise or integrate the knowledge within the company or at times with the individual. Coming back to the point of application of knowledge, it can be argued that it is not just important as to how an organisation creates knowledge but also how it applies it. An organisation can have knowledge that can be used for purposes that are for the benefit of its employees and are also socially responsible, but it can also use it in a way that is not socially responsible.

At this point, it would be useful to consider the theory offered by Cunliffe (2016), who argues that it is important to develop reflexivity, which he defines as “questioning what we, and others, might be taking for granted—what is being said and not said—and examining the impact this has or might have” (p. 741). Cunliffe (2016) argues that organisations as well as individuals need to examine their assumptions, decisions, actions, and interactions, to understand their impact. Even the assumptions underpinning organisational practices ought to be assessed from a reflexive perspective to explore the intended effects of policies and practices as well as the actual or potential impact of the same (Cunliffe, 2016). An example of payment protection insurance (PPI) offered by the British banks is given to make the point that even when the policy or practice is originally devised on the basis of the intended good sought to be achieved through it, future impacts may lead to the development of knowledge that such policy is not actually to the benefit of the intended audience (Cunliffe, 2016). In the case of British banks that offered this policy for more than a decade, the managers overlooked the fact that often unreasonably high sales targets were set before the staff and penalties were imposed for not reaching the targets without regard to the moral issues involved in the practice of pressurising employees into selling PPI insurance to customers who didn’t need it. Based on this example, Cunliffe (2016) argues that reflexivity “works at two levels—being self-reflexive about our own beliefs, values, and so on, and the nature of our relationships with others, what we say, and how we treat them” (p. 741).

Reflexive approach is being used in different fields for the purpose of enhancing knowledge from the perspective of how assumptions or actions of the self can be impactful by even questioning one’s own assumptions for the purpose of making the practice impactful in accordance with certain values; for example, in the field of psychotherapy, researchers use reflexivity by considering their own notes, thoughts and reactions to understand their own assumptions, actions and motivations as part of the research process itself (Dallos & Vetere, 2005, p. 59). At the very base of it, reflexive and ethical practice is a holistic approach which can be used by those who are undertaking projects to understand their own assumptions as well as impact of these practices (Gibbs, 1988).

To conclude this essay, it can be said that while knowledge may be constructed differently in different fields, there is a commonality of the significance of knowledge in all fields and organisations, the methods by which knowledge can be developed and maintained, and the use of reflexive method to adopt a more holistic approach to how knowledge is applied.

Bibliography

• Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Leidner, D. E. (2008). On Knowledge, Knowledge Management, and Knowledge Management Systems: An Introduction. In I. Becerra-Fernandez, & D. E. Leidner, Knowledge management: an evolutionary view (pp. 3-10). Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
• Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2000). Strategic Human Resource Management: Where Have We Come from and Where Should We Be Going? International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(2), 183 - 203.
• Cunliffe, A. L. (2016). On Becoming a Critically Reflexive Practitioner’ Redux: What Does It Mean to ‘Be’ Reflexive? Journal of Management Education, 40(6), 740.
• Dallos, R., & Vetere, A. (2005). Researching Psychotherapy and Counselling. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
• Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2011). The Evolving Field of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. In M. Easterby-Smith, & M. A. Lyles, Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (pp. 1-20). Wiley.
• Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: a guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit: Oxford Brookes University.
• Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2009). Career Management. California: Sage.
• Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man's life. New York: Knopf.
• Martin, J. R. (2013). Embedded literacy: Knowledge as meaning. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 23-37.
• Maslow, A. (1943, July). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press
• Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. L. (2011). Human Resource Development By. Mason: Cengage Learning.
• Wilson, J., & Catell, A. (2005). Knowledge Management. In J. P. Wilson, Human Resource Development: Learning & Training for Individuals & Organizations (pp. 111-136). London: Kogan Page.