Factors influencing the promotion of knowledge sharing in organisations

Commonly, we are accustomed to considering knowledge sharing as one of the positive outcomes of implementing knowledge management (KM), or one of the objectives of applying KM strategies in an organisation. In fact, this causal connection remains valid when understood in the reverse direction, that is, by increasing the quantity and quality of knowledge sharing, the performance of KM will be more assured. Such causal understanding is even more helpful in guiding managers in their specific management practices to improve the results of knowledge sharing.

From the enhancement of knowledge sharing to the better implementation of KM strategies, this is a developmental approach that affects the whole from the partial, and intervenes in the macro level from the micro level. In other words, we can achieve a better performing KM strategy by promoting the process and outcomes of knowledge sharing. I will discuss two factors which influence effectiveness of knowledge sharing from different aspects in this article.

Measurement and reward system of results: an accelerator of knowledge sharing

Talking about how to improve knowledge sharing, we should pay attention to the factors impacting knowledge sharing first. A quasi–field experiment conducted in 2014¹ revealed that evaluation plus reward in knowledge sharing could obviously work to increase the quantity and quality of knowledge sharing within a company.

There were three control groups divided from the whole members of a company in this controlled trial, which were blank control group, group for evaluation, and group for evaluation plus reward. In other words, the accountability was conducted in the latter two groups but only the last group also had the rewards according to the results of evaluation. Despite the slight effect caused by the diversity of employees’ personalities and so on, what the research showed is that the group 3 with evaluation plus reward can stimulate and improve the quality and quantity of knowledge sharing to the most extent.

This experiment shows firstly that identifying the measurement and assessment criteria of knowledge sharing outcomes is crucial in knowledge sharing within an organisation. On a broader scale, the construction of an assessment system for KM is essential to the managing progress and effectiveness of implementation, which is an issue that business executives and KM leaders should address and prioritise at the early stages of the KM strategy practice.

From what we have learned from our lecturer Rajesh Dhillon, the procedure of implementing a knowledge management strategy (KMS) includes several steps. Among them, the first step is to assess the organisational needs such as the existing knowledge gaps and current barriers. Following that, the second stage is defining the measurable goals, specifically involving the measurement standards and assessment system which aim to evaluate the outcomes of KM. On the condition that the measurement step is finished, the following one which is to draw the roadmap of KMS that can be achieved, enabling a series of organisational practices around knowledge to have the criteria and measurement to appraise.

In our lectures we have also discussed key performance indicators (KPIs) for KM, a set of standardised, quantitative assessment methods to measure the results of KM. What I want to emphasise here is that these KPIs can be more specified and categorised. Such as the knowledge sharing mentioned above, the engagement in the community of practice, and the learning outcomes of new technology acquisition, all of which can be set up with more detailed assessment methods and evaluation criteria respectively, to build up an assessment system for the effectiveness of organisational KM.

There is one thing that I cannot fail to mention, which Rajesh Dhillon highlighted in the class, that one of the challenges faced by organisational knowledge is to keep up with the pace of technological updates and advancements. This is both a challenge and a requirement for KM in a continuously changing social and market environment, as the phrase ‘change is not coming, it’s here, which is constant’ has impressed me the most in class. Therefore, as I see it, it is necessary for leaders to make use of technology to help realise the intelligence and convenience of the assessment method during the construction of the KM measurement system, which is also a symbol of introducing technology into the practice of KM, leading to the increase of innovation and efficiency in KM to a great degree.

Secondly, this experiment also demonstrates the significance of reward mechanisms, when reward mechanisms work in synergy with accountability to produce a corresponding benefit gain or loss for the assessment results of knowledge sharing, the employees will take a more serious attitude towards appraisal, and have more motivation and initiative to increase the quality and quantity of their personal knowledge sharing behaviours.

Generally speaking, from the perspective of individual employees, managers can promote knowledge sharing to the greatest extent possible through the establishment of knowledge sharing evaluation criteria, the construction of a KM assessment system, matched with appropriate reward mechanisms.

Regarding the assessment methods or system of knowledge sharing, the popularization and unification are what we should note as well. I would like to  mention another extremely well-known case here to explain why, which comes from one of the most extraordinary automobile manufacturers DaimlerChrysler. After the merger and restructuring of the company in 1998, they chose to select a small group of employees with the greatest ability to learn and summarise knowledge as the key players in the knowledge sharing practice within the company², who were asked to collect, organize and refine knowledge from various fields and then disseminate it to the entire membership. Though this is still a form of knowledge sharing, most of the employees do not really participate in the sharing process, they just passively receive the sharing and never become initiative sharers and creators.

Shared ‘knowledge’ does not flow fully among all members, and much of the tacit knowledge inside employees’ minds is not well articulated by these ‘best learners’. But we have known that refining and then turning organisational tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge which can be reserved and transformed easily is one of the core tasks in KM practice. More significantly, because the assessment criteria are not universally applied throughout the whole company, they don’t really foster knowledge-sharing habits among all members of the company. The measurement of knowledge sharing or KM achievements can motivate employees to participate in sharing, transformation and dissemination of knowledge. But if the standards don’t cover the whole company, the difference may even bring about a larger knowledge gap present within the company, as well as make the small group of members who are assessed feel unfair. This is likely to also be why DaimlerChrysler’s KM strategy did not achieved the highly visible results as they expected. The merger failed, and the two companies separated in 2007.

Collective culture: a regulator in knowledge sharing

Besides stimulating and improving the knowledge sharing focused on the aspect of individual employees, the culture of organisation is a perspective that is very easy to be ignored and even forgotten by the leader of KM.

Linked to what we have talked about in our class, managing knowledge in readiness and sustainability is the key lesson for ideal business performances which is the best way for companies to adapt to the constant changes and make sure there are positive outcomes of KM. It emphasizes that leadership, technology, and workplace culture are the fundamental framework of management indicating the importance of corporation culture. In fact, the corporation culture or we can say collective culture, has vital function in terms of the knowledge sharing process as well.

By researching influences on individual knowledge sharing behaviours, several authors have confirmed the significance of collective culture in the process of knowledge sharing. They found that collectivism, a form of organisational culture, working as the regulatory factor, can enhance members’ motivation to participate in knowledge sharing within the organization³. A higher level of collectivism means stronger trust built among members and more frequent and sufficient interactions within the organisation, which will lead the knowledge sharing to a deeper level.

This research shows that the organisational culture or the collectivism can make a difference on more than one influencing factor of knowledge sharing, offering better performances to knowledge sharing multi-dimensionally. Therefore, what we could learn from the findings is that the shape and formation of collective recognition, organisational consensus, and culture should be paid the same attention as other individual factors and social factors. On a fundamental level, collectivism is a consensus of team ideology that prioritizes collective benefits over individual interests, which is infused in a wide range of collective behaviors involving knowledge production and sharing, and the creation of communities of practice. As the construction of culture is a time -consuming and sophisticated process, leaders of organizations are expected to develop a long-term staged strategy for the construction of a collective culture and the cohesion of a collective vision.

Currently, we are glad to see that there have been all kinds of marked and typical programmes regularly set up in a large number of outstanding companies, which makes up parts of the corporate culture. Next, I am going to share a case in point based on my observation and interview.

I paid a site visit to Alibaba in May 2024. Within the corporate industrial park, not only are there fruit and vegetable picking gardens where employees can enjoy free access, but there are also recreational areas for family-friendly activities such as fishing and rock climbing, as well as spray-painted walls for impromptu artwork which has been confirmed to have positive effect on relieving stress according to some scientific research.

Alibaba hoped that the company was able to serve not only as a workplace for its employees, but also to satisfy their recreational and leisure requirements, including shopping and vacationing needs. A relative of mine who works in Ali’s auditing department introduced that, Alibaba routinely organizes various collective activities among enterprises, such as ‘crayfish fishing’, household fun sports day, and so on. In addition to this, the company also provides funds, sites, and guarantee of resources such as necessary infrastrutures to support the establishment of different interest groups related to sports, arts, literature, and even video games within the company. Workers are welcome to sign up freely and join in the regular activities of those groups they are interested in.

The above series of strategies and measures have all served as good platforms and opportunities for gathering collective consciousness and building a collective culture , making the Ali culture one of the synonyms of successful corporate cultures.

In regard to the collective culture, I cannot fail to notice that the method of ‘spoon-feed’ should be avoided, which is likely to be wrongly regarded as an effective approach by some impatient and aggressive leaders. The collective culture must be shaped and refined step by step from the group experiences and corporate memory, and then permeate the workers’ systems of values. It takes such a long time, which is considered to be a systematic project and a developing task, requiring the leaders to not hope that they can create the collective culture as soon as possible or get it done once for all.

Linking the findings of my readings with real-life examples and personal investigation, it can be illustrated once again that collectivism and the creation of a collective culture are not negligible for the sharing of knowledge equally, which pushes knowledge sharing from the cultural aspect.

Rajesh Dhillon has reminded me that a collective culture which respects the diversity of all members and support it to promote the equity and inclusion within the organisation can actually be regarded part of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) culture. DEI is what numerous companies and universities are trying to shape and promote in their organisations, making sure the stronger team cohesiveness, harmonized atmosphere and better brand image and working as the internal driving force for knowledge sharing and even growth. How to better integrate DEI into knowledge sharing is really a valuable topic for further research.

To summarise what I want to share with you, effective knowledge sharing is not only one of the purposes for KM but can also be helpful to implement KM strategies more smoothly in turn. To achieve that, both the individual perspective of employees, which needs to set up clear, detailed and reasonable knowledge sharing evaluation system, and the collective culture aspect that means the building of collective consensus and organisational culture should be taken into account by orgnisational leaders.

Article source: Adapted from Influencing Factors of Promoting Knowledge Sharing – Talking about How to Use in Cases and Collective Culture: A Regulator in Knowledge Sharing, prepared as part of the requirements for completion of course KM6304 Knowledge Management Strategies and Policies in the Nanyang Technological University Singapore Master of Science in Knowledge Management (KM).

Header image source: Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.

References: