Towards a Network Exchange Perspective for Knowledge Sharing Systems

Liaquat Hossain

Presentation Outline

Problems addressed in this study

Organization, structure and communications network

Network exchange perspective of knowledge sharing

The Ying and Yang of organizational design

Flow of power structures within organization

A Sociotechnical View of Knowledge Sharing

“… organizational objectives are best met not by the optimization of the technical system and the adaptationof the social system to it, but by the joint optimization of the technical and social aspects …”

Cherns, 1978

Problems addressed in this study

1. Design and management of legitimate (i.e., formal) and shadow network (i.e., informal and “tacit”) for KS

3. The mechanical (i.e., quantitative and theoretical) and organic (i.e., qualitative and subjective) components for KS in organizations.

2. The mechanics of exchange, conflict, and coercive relations for KS

Organization, structure and communications network

• Organization can be defined as a person or a group of people united for some purpose (Cyert and March,1963).

• Ethical codes and market system itself can be interpreted as organizations (Arrow, 1974).

• Organization structure is seen as a mechanism for guiding communication flows among individuals.

• Regular patterns of communication contacts among people within a social system can be referred to as communications network (Wigand, 1988)

• Strengths of weak ties suggests that casual acquaintances promotes organizational learning (Granovetter, 1973).

• Information exchange, patterns, coalition and power of individual members can be drawn by communication network analysis (Wigand, 1988; Bonacich and Bienenstock, 2000).

• Types of interactions, or links, among agents where legitimate network refers to formal and shadow network refers to informal structure can serve as a differentiation between formal and informal OS (Stacey, 1996).

Communication Flow through OS

• In the legitimate network, interactions or links are either—– (i) formally and intentionally established by the powerful members

of the organization, or – (ii) established well-understood, implicit guiding principles, which

are accepted by the members of the organization.

• Shadow network consists of links that are spontaneously and informally established by the individuals among themselves during the interaction process in the legitimate system (Stacey, 1996).

• Network exchange perspective advanced by Markovsky, Willer and Patton (1988) provides a basis for exploring the differences in resource accumulations of positions in interconnected groups of actors.

Legitimate vs. Shadow Network Structure

 

Network exchange perspective of knowledge sharing

•Elementary theory is used to explore exchange, conflict, and coercive relations for agents (Willer and Anderson, 1981;

Willer, 1987).

•ET is a modeling procedure that can be used to build models of properties inside the actor, and for properties outside the actor (Willer, 1999).

•For example, preferences and beliefs are considered as properties inside the actor and social relations and social structures are viewed as properties outside the actor (i.e. the inside and outside actor, may provide significant insights about KS practices in organizations).

Elementary theory or ET for Knowledge Sharing

• The concept of power exercise is central to ET.

• Power exercise is the movement of valued resources among agents, the control of one agent by another, or both (Willer, 1999).

• For example, when people interact, two kinds of events indicate that power is being exercised.

• First, A is exercising power over B when A benefits more than B

• Second, A is exercising power over B when A controls B more than the contrary.

• Three types of networks are examined within the ET literature—equal power, strong power, and weak power

Equal Power Network

• An equal power network represents a state of no exclusion, or a network of agents that face an equal probability of exclusion.

B A

D

C A

B

Strong Power Network

• It consists of one or more agents who are never excluded from an exchange and one or more agents who are potentially always excluded from an exchange.

• two examples of strong networks where the probability of an A-exchange is 100% and the probability for a B, C, or D-exclusion is 100%.

B A C A D

D

C A

B

Weak Power Network

• Exists between the two extremes of equal and strong power

• For example, no single agent is necessarily any more powerful than any other agent in the network as all the agents have an—unequal—

probability of exclusion

D D

C A C A

B B

Strong power Weak power

The Ying and Yang of Organizational Design

• Legitimate networks are often designed by organization heads and/or influenced over time by established behaviors and culture (Stacey, 1996).

• KM literature suggests the direct relationship between legitimate structure and knowledge legitimation (Gumport and Snydman, 2002).

• Dynamics of knowledge legitimation suggest that knowledge has social origins (Manheim, 1936; Kuhn, 1962; and Mulkay, 1979).

• Legitimate network is the skeleton, where shadow structure is the central nervous system which, drives the collective thought processes, actions, and reactions (Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993).

• Successful OD depends on the capacity to design and support legitimate networks that maximize the potential for “spontaneous” development of shadow networks.

Flow of Power Structures within Organization

• A study of shadow networks and CoPs across 50 firms suggest that social network analyses aimed at identifying shadow networks is a legitimate management tool for understanding the flow of power (Cross and Prusak, 2002).

• Construction of sociograms help in identifying leaders and isolated agents for uncovering asymmetry and reciprocity, and also to map chains of connection (Moreno, 1934).

• The value of ET is in its simple, clear, and experimentally validated assumptions about resources, structure, or both.

•Hypotheses based on the assumed resources of specific agents within a network combined with their placement within equal, weak, or strong networks can be used as a tool for building and testing theory.

Managing Knowledge Sharing

• Attention to the following three core components would be required for managing KS in organizations:

• structure effects

• How is the structure of this network affecting outcome?

• Who are the power players within the network?

• Who is being excluded? Why? Should I intervene?

• resource effects

• Which skills and resources are valued the most by “the organization”?

• Which skills and resources are valued the most by said employees?

• Can these skills be better leveraged through subtle manipulation of network channels? That is, can I lower the probability of exclusion of this knowledge by helping to motivate a previously blocked or nonexistent line of communication?

ReferencesArrow, K. (1974). The Limits of Organization, Norton and Company, New York.

Bonacich, P., and Bienenstock, E. J. (2000). ‘Patterns of coalitions in exchange networks: an experimental study,’ Rationality and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 352-373.

Cherns, A. (1978). ‘The principles of sociotechnical design,’ In Pasmore, W. A., and J. J. Sherwood (eds.), Sociotechnical Systems: A Sourcebook.. La Jolla, California: University Associates Incorporated, pp. 61-71.

Cross, R., and Prusak, L. (2002). ‘The people who make organizations go—or stop,’ Harvard Business Review, June, Vol. 80, pp. 104-112.

Cyert, R. M., and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, N.J., U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). ‘The Strength of Weak Ties,’ American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, pp. 1360-1380.

Gumport, P. J., and Snydman, S. K. (2202). ‘The formal organization of knowledge,’ The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 375-408 (Columbus, Ohio).

Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J. R. (1997). ‘Informal networks: The company,’ In: Knowledge in Organizations, Prusak, L (Edited), pp. 37-49.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ReferencesMannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge, Transl. Louis Wirth & Edward Shils. New York: Harcourt Brace & World.

Markovsky, B., Willer, D., and Patton, T. (1988). ‘Power Relations in Exchange Networks,’ American Sociological Review, Vol. 53, pp. 220-36.

Moreno, J. (1934). Who shall survive? New York: Beacon Press.

Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge, London: George Allen & Unwin.

Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.

Wigand, R. T. (1988). ‘Communication Network Analysis: History and Overview,’ In: Handbook of Organizational Communication, G. Goldhaber and G. Barnett (Eds.), Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, 319-359.

Willer, D. (1987). Theory and the experimental investigation of social structures, New York: Gordon and Breach.

Willer, D., and Anderson, B. (1981). Network Exchange, and Connection, New York: Elsevier.

Willer, D. (1999). Network Exchange Theory (Edited), Westport, Cr: Praeger