Knowledge Sharing and Networks: Perhaps It's not "Who You Know" but rather, "Who You Know + What They Know"

 
Academic article:  Locate, read and summarize an academic article that presents a related theory, case example, etc. Draw connections between the ideas in the article and those you read for class.

After reading the assigned articles for the week, I first like to take a look at the group  assignment requirements and parameters.  Typically, they contain a few moving parts, and by the time my groupskype meets we have a fairly good idea of what has to be done.  But by whom? Sometimes there is more research that needs work, but lately, we are in the position to quickly engage our "other' resources -- our social networks.

I looked at this week's readings and noticed the author's names:  Each article this week was authored by at least two people and one had three.  The pieces had teamwork and networking written all over them.  That seemed to make sense for a subject like social networks.  So I began researching the subject, taking into account the "multiple authors for social networks theory" I just coined. So I went back to the well.  I research the authors from our reading this week. And it didn't take long to find a highly-cited one: "Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing In Social Networks,"  by Rob Cross, Andrew Parker, Lawrence Prusak & Stephen Borgatti. 

In 2001, Cross, Parker, Prusak & Borgatti conducted research to find out ways of maximizing employees skill of creating and sharing knowledge in key social networks.  Their first steps were to identify the characteristics or relationships  40 managers relied on for understanding and knowledge sharing on key work initiatives (Cross, Parker, Prusak & Borgatti, 2001). 

In the second phase, the authors utilized social network analysis (SNA) to place the relationships among strategically important networks of people in one organization (Cross, Parker, Prusak & Borgatti, 2001).  They offered their definition of Social Network Analysis of the organization and offer relational qualities that promote effective "Knowledge Sharing."

The authors in the 2001 article were looking for was the degree to which people seek others in their network over archives, the internet and other sources for work/project-related information. The idea of "knowledge sharing,"  is one that is focused toward the obtaining and retaining of information among organizations, and mapping the social networks of these 40 managers displays the strategic  importance of sharing that enhances that knowledge flow.  The articles seemed focused toward company  executive management and research audiences, while the in 2002, Cross, Borgatti & Parker appear to address management from a relationship perspective.

In 2002, Cross, Borgatti & Parker, take a look a larger picture of collaboration and how effective SNA as a managerial tool, showing how sharing information (or who shares it), can be a benefit or liability for the organization. If the level of work and output among a group is so great that each person in that group evolves into a specialist.  However, the group maintains its productivity, in part due to the transactive memory system that has naturally developed (Hollingshead, 1998).  What if someone retires, quits or gets fired? ( In organizations, there is always fear about sharing too much of your expertise, your contacts)  Beyond that, with the sheer amount of information that people and groups process, however,  the few"bottlenecks"or (isolated structural holes) that may occur can create detrimental results (Burt, 1992).  In both the 2001 and  2002 articles, the authors cited Krackhardt and Hanson's 1993 article, "Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart."

The 2001 article does introduce the concepts of social networks , as does the Hanneman and Riddle (2005) article.  But nearly all  of the authors previously mentioned view social networks and  relationships from more of a theoretical view or  from the perspective of company management, while particularly Ibarra & Hunter (2007) focus on how one may build each of their networks (operational, personal and strategic) for their current and future growth as a leader. To make  immediate, real changes in expanding one's network, Ibarra and Hunter (2001) offer more personal applicable suggestions on self-improvement.

I realize my author search wasn't utilizing my my network for this article, since I had a specific need for an academic article (one example is that I could have emailed a someone in my network to point me in a direction), but it did strengthen the powerful idea of relying on what one already possesses (networks, theories, resources) that can be the difference-maker for us.

"Don't reinvent the wheel," is a phrase we continually hear in business. And the information we seek is stored somewhere for us to find and use. But the sphere of our network is one that rolls right along, with little or no wobbling.  We can benefit from it greatly - if are centered within it  and "give and take continually." (Ibarra & Hunter, p. 2)










References

Burt, R.(1992), Structural Holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S.P., (2001). Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing In Social Networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100-201

Cross, R., Borgatti, S.,  & Parker, A. (2002). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to Support
    Strategic Collaboration. California Management Review, 44 (2) 25-46

Hanneman, R., and Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to Social Network Methods. . Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside














Hollingshead, A. (1998). Retrieval Processes in Transactive Memory Systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 659-671

Ibarra, H. and Hunter, M. (2007). Managing Yourself: How Leaders Create and Use Networks. Harvard Business Review, 1-9

Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J. (1993). Making Invisible Work Visible:  Using Social Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration.  California Management Review, 44(2), 25-46

Levin, D.Z., and Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50,  1477-1490