Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Who wouldn't trust this kitteh? |
Even though it's Spring Break, knowledge
management waits for no person! I don't know about y'all, but I've been getting
bombarded with e-mails about the UK payroll issues. If you haven't been getting
the e-mails, the Cliffnotes version is this: On payday two weeks ago, UK states
that there was an unfortunate error by their banking partner, PNC which led to
many employees not receiving their paycheck on time. This led to me think about
how it relates to what we've talked about with knowledge sharing and bounded
awareness in knowledge management. So this week I picked articles related to
trust and reputation in knowledge management.
Knowledge Management comic strip from here. |
The next article I read was Knowledge
outsourcing: an alternative strategy for knowledge management by Lam and
Chua. This was a case study about knowledge outsourcing and how it is currently used by an organization, in the hopes of presenting it as an alternative to knowledge management. On a knee jerk reaction, I think this is nuts. If you are going to outsource knowledge for your company, then why not just hire the people that already have the knowledge. However, after I thought about it, it does make sense in certain instances. For example, if it is a small company that does not have many technological needs, then outsourcing that help to a dedicated external tech help company would make sense. The article presents some interesting points and while I'm open to the idea, I am still not sold that knowledge outsourcing (KO) is a viable alternative to knowledge management. The way I look at it is that in the long run, knowledge management will help a company run smoother. It's like the old adage: "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life!"
The final article I read for this week was The
impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices by
Lucas. This article did a complete 180 from the Ibrahim and Allen article, by saying that trust is necessary for the "transfer of best practices." Although, I think there is an important distinction between the "transfer of best practices" and "information sharing." To me, information sharing is more general in nature, whereas transfer of best practices means that over time the best of that information sharing has evolved into sound practices and is perhaps useful on a wide scale in the company. So what Lucas is saying then is that to get these best practices, you need trust and a good reputation (Sorry Joan Jett). Which of course make complete sense and is probably why innovation driven companies like Google work so hard to cultivate trust and create positive working environments for their employees.
|
||
References
Hassan Ibrahim, N., & Allen, D. (2012).
Information sharing and trust during major incidents: Findings from the oil
industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 63(10), 1916-1928.
Lam, W., & Chua, A. Y. (2009). Knowledge
outsourcing: an alternative strategy for knowledge management. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(3), 28-43.
Lucas, L. M. (2005). The impact of trust and
reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(4), 87-101.
Thanks for sharing your careful observation that some of our articles have differing views on the role of trust in knowledge transfer. I've read the Lucas article which you note argues that trust must exist for optimum knowledge transfer, but I have not read Hassan and Allen's article. You note that they "show that sharing information actually builds trust." I don't think Lucas would exclude that idea, but I think the articles differ in how much they stress the presence of trust, which Hassan and Allen's see it as building through knowledge transfer. Does their argument imply that the transfer is reciprocal? In other words, do multiple parties have to share information with each other in sort of a back and forth arrangement in order to build trust? In that case, I wonder how they would address some of our other readings that have shown that people share information without the expectation of reciprocity.
ReplyDelete"In other words, do multiple parties have to share information with each other in sort of a back and forth arrangement in order to build trust?"
DeleteI would think that it depends on the situation. I would think if everyone shared information things would be better, but management is probably always going to hold things back from the workforce and vice versa. So maybe it's more practical that workers on the same level would be willing to share information as long as there is that reciprocity.
There is DEFINITELY a kind of mass mutual accountability involved in information sharing of this type. I think the good feelings I described in my post on this article evolved as a positive way to reinforce this behavior. Collaboration is definitely a double-edged sword-- we can all share the benefit, but we also all share the punishment!
ReplyDelete