identification of knowledge
The identification of knowledge is a varied and diverse field of study. Within the varied theories, marked debate, and multiplicative definitions, knowledge has risen to noble stature, representing a modern business professional's greatest workplace weaponry. While oftentimes confused with an overload of meaningless information and irrelevant facts, “knowledge can be distinguished from information by its inclusion of interpretations, from beliefs by its higher degree of validity, and from wisdom by its more transient veridicality.” Yet, how does one implement transience in truth to obtain position or sustain preeminence in an overt power struggle? Ultimately, recognition that knowledge itself represents a form of strategy, one which when fully realized, offers opportunity for both assuming roles of power and principle, but sustaining relationships and activating potential. The true power of knowledge is not inasmuch the ability to circumvent one's opponents, but it is an innate force which establishes precedence for future conversations, business matters, and the representation of one's internal framework. For corporations and political units, knowledge represents a competitive edge, one insurmountable as long as its variables are appropriately regimented and guarded. Yet, the reality in all theory relative to knowledge as power is that to wield such a tool with substantive dexterity requites deep understanding of both internal and external forces, mastery of which has been a lifelong pursuit for many fallen figurehead.
Knowledge and its exchange represents the most base pursuit of communication elicited from human beings. Reciprocity during this process governs the amount of knowledge which is distributed by sender and receiver. General human assumptions challenge that the more knowledge offered, the more is returned. This defining factor of assumptive knowledge exchange exposes senders in competitive scenarios to exploitation by advantageous receivers. In the business environment, management staff represents the knowledge dissemination tool. Determining which information to filter to lower levels becomes a tactical tool, either motivating or disheartening the unwitting employees. Oftentimes a tool of strategic implementation, knowledge sharing becomes a targeted educational opportunity, inoculating all staff with the underlying methodology for the upcoming changes. Recognized by many theorists, the infiltration of the knowledge process by intangibles, most unfortunately, those which undermine expected principles, oftentimes are engineered by tacit principles, levels of understanding governed by individual interpretation. “Knowledge transfer frameworks that fail to account for highly iterative task dependency may seriously underestimate the integration challenge faced by groups in organizations.” Modulation in business is a key strategic need, yet when inappropriately introduced, including an oversight regarding employee competencies and base understanding, there is substantial potential for failed initiatives and a loss of a key power structure.
Among knowledge based theory, there is substantial debate around what form of knowledge transfer is a most effective mode of communication. “Tacit knowledge develops from the transfer of context-specific knowledge embedded typically in non-standardized and tailored processes.” Externalization involves the use of internally generated modifications, values, biases, etc to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Yet even within this defining framework, there remains an absence of solidification as theorists challenge that these qualifiers are not enough to fully convert tacit knowledge. Furthermore, as science ultimately revolves around an auspice of explicit knowledge, there is a subjective relationship between theory and findings, one which leads to progressively less trustworthy conclusions. These inconsistencies have assisted in the determination that “in the so-called knowledge society, the ‘truth' of expertise has to be identified by the audience of demanders, not by the suppliers of knowledge.” Where power was once firmly rooted in the claims of the expert, modern perspective and the inclination to question any and all expressions of fact has led a doubtful society to retain power in the form of safeguarded internal mechanisms which are exerted in times of conflict. Many still work diligently to usurp this power, framing their knowledgeable arguments around ultimatums and potentially serious grievances, however, more practical motivational approaches are founded within knowledge sharing practices and inciting an educated community, rather than detracting from one's reputation and overall substantive approach.
Yet within this evolving structure of the formation of knowledge, acquisition no longer requires simply an absorptive capacity, but is enabled by an ability to overcome socially construed organizational barriers. By themselves, these mechanisms play an intricate part of everyday organizational behavior, requiting observers to identify key areas of focus, specifically targeted to benefit internal competencies, and interpret the information so readily distributed. To substantiate this ideology, Winjenhoven reminds that in the theories surrounding knowledge studies, codification represents perhaps the most important actualization of organizational behavior and its integration with knowledge transfer capacity. Subjective codification is of serious concern in the study of knowledge transfer, oftentimes explaining why the best efforts fail miserably beneath the unseen hammer of dissonance. One particular message framed and distributed from a biased sender will be equally manipulated by a receiver of different bias or perspective. The hierarchy of power does in fact depend on this misinterpretation, as those who utilize its foundation for advantageous principles can find multiple ways to manipulate their receivers. Compensation is actuated by ideologies that “knowledge is a justified personal belief that increases an individual's capacity to take effective action.” Reception of codified information that may be reinterpreted into a relevant framework sustains the power precedence, enabling the listener by way of uniquely suited data sets.
Exemplary in the business world are many cases of disseminated ideologies and explicit framework through which global employee bases are educated and equitably managed. When Whole Foods Market decided to implement strict guidelines regarding employee expectations and performance, this transmission was elucidated in the form of a handbook or manual. The management team, wielding this information, elevated themselves to a position of power, dismissive of employee dissent as the knowledge in the handbook represented explicitness that was undeniable. While exemplary of a common business practice, the ease of human resource management is entirely facilitated by stringent adherence to the explicit terms of the manual. Global corporations such as Tesco, Phillips, and IBM all use forms of manuals to disseminate explicit information to their employees, guaranteeing understanding and expecting compliance. Knowledge can represent an improvement in general education, such as the introduction of new policies or procedures; similarly, knowledge based foundations within an employee base can undergo unwanted changes if not nurtured and appropriately introduced into the power structure. Sharing knowledge of a new initiative in the workplace is regarded as a standard policy among managers; however, when presented with potentially dire consequences if failure occurs, the need to withhold particular information can define the presentation. Employees must feel as though they are fundamentally incorporated into the modulation proceedings, yet at the same time, will follow management tactics based on an appropriate level of introduced knowledge.
All of this formative transmission is relevant to the underlying strength of the organization within which exchange occurs. Theorists Mudambi and Navarra sustain that in the transmission of knowledge, businesses with a strong organizational culture and intrinsic motivational factors will experience more productive partnering and limited opportunistic exchanges. Relevant to change in the workplace, the introduction of new initiatives is almost always accompanied by doubt and misunderstanding. A strong organization will utilize these fears and uncertainties as undercurrents for knowledge introduction, solidifying the power structure and assuming the superior role as educators and leaders. Knowledge transmission does not, however, have to be schematized and made complicated in execution. In terms of multinational corporations, it is prudent for “codified knowledge that is relatively easy to transmit to be geographically dispersed, whereas highly tacit knowledge tends to remain localized.” The Philips Corporation recently rolled out new lines of green-friendly bulbs which are now a staple in their electric line. The utilization of internal networks and educational seminars effectively sustained employee queries while representing the undertones of future product manipulations. This project itself, however, represents a very different facet of knowledge, one which without structure, has led many global firms to collapse. The organizational culture itself must support and sustain these initiatives, founding their success on the participation of supportive employees. Integrated into the cycle of power, these opinionated professionals will find acquiescence to a project's potential much more achievable as their knowledge is represented in the creation, execution, and marketing of the particular business unit.
The acquisition of knowledge presents perhaps the most significant challenge which faces global firms in today's rapidly evolving marketplace. In this environment, Carlile and Rebentisch remind that a firm's knowledge base offers significant competitive advantage, however when new demands require knowledge outside of previous efforts or acquisitions, firms may find themselves locked in a competency trap. Innovations and continued education are a form of knowledge assimilation which sustains the power dynamic, placing those firms with advanced comprehension and information at the forefront of an evolved marketplace. Certain corporations such as NEC have utilized this potential to their strategic advantage, undermining competitors with far superior market share by re-aligning their business with a diversified knowledge base. Ultimately, their refocus and company-wide strategy of innovation established the “only company in the world that is a top five producer of both computer and communications equipment.” Their rise to power was founded entirely on partnerships with competitors who could have been seen as catastrophic to their efforts if in possession of particular knowledge and insight. Ultimately, from a strategic point of view, “knowledge management needs to be predicated upon a desire for effective action” Formation of a business action plan, coupling of sustainable objectives, and effective management of knowledge sustains a hierarchical power structure which supports unprecedented corporate initiatives.
There is a potential for failure within this methodology, however, as corporations actively guard knowledge in an attempt to maintain their competitive edge. In both interpersonal relationships and in business operations, Carlile and Rebentisch note that stored knowledge creates a transitional path dependency, prohibiting transfer if affronted or challenged.17 The potential to guard against opportunistic competitors has hindered many corporations such as NEC's greatest challenger AT&T who focused instead on their overwhelming market share instead of where the competition had realized strategic gains in the world of the internet and electronic communications. Strategic planning oftentimes includes a comprehensive knowledge sharing program, one which contributes to a partnering relationship with a one time competitor for the improvement of overall business operations. Should a particular corporation seek to expand their component manufacturing, those internal mechanisms might lie outside of the scope of their core competencies. By effectively guarding the overall component, their incorporation of a partner into creation of functioning participles will sustain project timelines without requiting advanced education or the acquisition of new human and technological resources to complete the project. “Knowledge characteristics and the transfer of knowledge itself are thus seldom consistently taken to be endogenous to organizational arrangements.” There are almost always external motivational factors which encourage the use of tactical knowledge for assumption of power within the corporate environment; most often contributing to efficiencies and expansion of scope, integration of sharing programs represents a key strategic function of the prudent business manager.
Interpersonal relationships represent perhaps the most misunderstood axiom of knowledge management. Inherent in the social power struggle, the possession of knowledge is oftentimes wielded as a double edged sword, one which when cumbersome will strike back at the possessor. In communication principles, “highly embedded relationships allow for feedback mechanisms, ensure that procedures are properly interpreted, and ensure that knowledge is accurately transferred.” Basically stated, this theory generates a need for interwoven knowledge exchanges. Active listening practices, in support of knowledge dissemination will fulfill the underlying need of all humans to possess a base understanding equal or greater than local peers. Even within these relationships, “it has become almost axiomatic that knowledge and learning are at the root of understanding how competitive advantage is gained and sustained.” To compete in relationships is to establish dominance, and this in turn represents the most intricate of all power structures. Global powers recognize knowledge as the perpetuator of political power, pitting governments against their peers as information and tactical data is codified to represent a struggle for superiority. Yet understanding interpersonal communication as a political battle limits the potential for assimilation of knowledge. Interestingly, this theory of advantageous modes of communication and a refusal to download is the subject of most theorists works, proselytizing the increased necessity for knowledge based communication for deeper interactions and more sustained communication.
Early case studies in the relationship between power and knowledge determined that “during the first power stage, knowledge should trigger equity norms and, if concerns for equity are greater than concerns for outcome maximization, power use should be lower than in the noknowledge condition.” Ultimately, results demonstrated that awareness of deficiency in the power structure, termed knowledge acquisition, encouraged increased determination and a desire towards more power. Historical recognition of fading power has led great men to tragic demise as their desire to overcome the imbalance challenged their abilities to utilize knowledge to their advantage. Within this infrastructure, Connell et al. challenged that knowledge is a tradeable commodity, one which when utilized for gain, can be manipulated to achieve sustained objectives. This form of intellectual property can offer powerful influence, sustaining a hierarchical structure when integrated into intrapersonal communication. Relegating the relinquishment of knowledge to general, tacitly founded information when confronted with someone who rapidly expels more explicit data can offer a one-sided power base from which to mount strategic offensives and gain an upper hand. Yet this oftentimes meaningless volley simply sustains the ideology that power structures are only as supportive as their foundation. When basing tactical methodology on knowledge based fundamentals, the potential to be toppled grows increasingly substantial the more communication is directed to external sources. Just as one person actively seeks knowledge based power, their counterpart is equitably balanced and exploiting a potential for furthered understanding outside of a particular field. Shared knowledge in this scenario equals an increased potency for both parties as the reciprocity contributes to substantial expansion of ideologies and both tacit and explicit knowledge bases.
There is no longer the knowledgeable scientist who is both revered and referenced as a hierarchical dynamo simply based on his information possession. Nor is there any business leader who can command an industry based entirely on advanced knowledge and appreciation of a guarded strategy. In the end, there is an innate need to share knowledge among interested parties in an attempt to sustain substantive relationships. Knowledge may be power but the possession of its characteristics is only relevant when wielded with intent and collaboration between open minds. No single knowledgeable entity can sustain its endeavors, interpersonal or inter-industrial, without subjecting its base of knowledge to the appropriation of others. Explicit or tacit, knowledge is undeniably subjective, and although many may believe that their veracity supersedes any potential doubters, in reality, the penchant for frailty of argument is only exacerbated by hidden agendas and a desire for power. If the alternate phrasing were proposed and power became definitive of knowledge, a similar result would occur, requiting dissemination for the simple fact of educating a desirous population to the realized attributes which breed knowledge and its expansion within the frail foundations of an un-sustained and assumptive power.
