What are ‘institutions’, why do they matter from a knowledge management (KM) perspective, and how can we contribute?
Introduction
Have you ever considered the extent to which our lives are shaped by institutions? According to author Yuval Levin, institutions provide the framework of how people ought to behave, channelling individual desires and ambitions towards the benefit of a larger community1. On the surface, the idea of surrendering individual autonomy to influences of a higher institution may sound unnerving, even absurd. However, the fact that institutions have existed since human civilisation began (e.g., family, religion) proves their significance for the functioning of society and a matter worth contemplating2.
As a third-generation Singaporean, I grew up being aware and accepting of the institution of National Service3. While the term ‘National Service’ could be interpreted as the fulfilment of civic duties, there is a specific context when it is used by Singaporeans. When Singapore was ousted from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, the newly formed nation state was vulnerable and largely defenceless. Two years later, then-Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, mandated conscription or National Service4 for all 18-year-old male Singapore citizens and permanent residents. Through National Service, it created inroads in the development of military expertise and Singapore’s defence industry, in the fostering of defence relations with regional and international partners, and it served to unite a people. Six decades on, the institution of National Service has been instrumental in developing citizen soldiers and remains core to the Singaporean identity.
Scope
Reflecting on my personal experience, I am convinced of the importance of institutions. By recognising their value, it would also allow us to examine our individual contributions in a more meaningful light. Furthermore, institutions are knowledge sanctuaries and instrumental in facilitating the renewal and propagation of knowledge in society5. In this article, we shall explore what institutions are and why they matter from a knowledge management (KM) perspective. We shall also consider how individuals can actively contribute to the process of institution building.
The role of institutions in society
Institutions can be defined6 as a network of regular social interactions and practices underpinned by a set of agreed rules. They can be classified as either formal or informal institutions7. Examples of formal institutions are government bodies and financial institutions which consist of legally-binding regulations. In Singapore, National Service is a formal institution enshrined in its constitution. An example of an informal institution is language which is a sociocultural institution meant for the communication of ideas and is governed by its grammar and a community’s lingua franca. Family-kinship structures are also another type of informal institution which are built upon socially agreed norms and customs. In this paper, the discussion will be focused on formal institutions where KM practices are relatively more implementable as compared to informal ones.
Institutions and organisations – A supportive relationship
At this juncture, one might ask how institutions differ from organisations? To clarify, organisations8 are comprised of people who conduct ordered activities in relation to a hierarchical structure towards the attainment of common purpose and goals. On the other hand, institutions are typically composed of a few organisations bound together by shared rules of how they are to conduct themselves as part of a larger ecosystem (e.g., industry, healthcare, military). If organisations give form to collective thought, institutions amplify collective thought and elevate its presence in society. Through institutions, meaningful discourse and consultation with the highest levels of government can take place along with better galvanisation of support on societal issues.
Institutions and society – A dynamic relationship
The relationship between institutions and society is dynamic and how one evolves profoundly impacts the other. An example was the global Colonial System, which was at its zenith between 1870 to 1914 (just before WWI). It comprised of a web of institutions which legitimised how empires colonised territories, extracted value and imposed control over its colonies9. However, over time, these colonial institutions struggled to find its place in society against the rising tide of nationalist sentiments and independence movements10. For example, institutions that were built upon trade and commerce with colonies were eventually dissolved along with key players such as the British East India Company and its Dutch counterpart. Great Britain’s Colonial Office which previously oversaw the administration of colonies was renamed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1966, championing decolonisation and the promotion of mutually beneficial foreign relations11. Thus, we can infer that while institutions were able to exert an influence on society, its members could similarly advocate or oppose an institution’s continued existence.
The importance of institutions for knowledge management?
Having glimpsed how institutions are essential to the functioning of society, we turn our attention to evaluating institutions from a KM perspective. Last year, Nobel Laureates Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson were awarded the prize in economic sciences for their groundbreaking research12 that institutions – not geography or culture – are the primary drivers of economic development. In their work, they explained that ‘good’ or inclusive institutions were the reasons why nations became prosperous while those that failed to develop such institutions remained in poverty. In this section, we draw insights from their research to elucidate the importance of institutions for KM.
Firstly, institutions exist for the retention and promotion of knowledge. In the laureates’ research, they discussed how colonial institutions that were established as early as the 1500s had a determinant effect on the prosperity of modern-day nations. They classified institutions into two categories – inclusive institutions and extractive institutions (Refer to Figure 1). Inclusive institutions were built to support political and economic systems for the long-term benefit of European settlers. Nations that benefitted from such institutions include Canada and the United States. On the other hand, extractive institutions were established for the purpose of exploiting the indigenous population and extracting its territories’ natural resources. Nations that were products of extractive institutions include Peru and Bolivia. In both examples, these institutions continued to serve as knowledge repositories to their colonies (and subsequently, nation states) in matters of political and economic administration. Hence, we observe that institutions are reliable knowledge repositories which could enable the effective functioning of society. However, institutions may have the opposite effect of ossifying and propagating knowledge that is detrimental to society such as nation states who were previously subjugated to colonial extractive institutions.
Secondly, inclusive institutions are more effective at encouraging knowledge sharing and transfer. In the laureates’ research, they highlighted that inclusive institutions allowed “the majority of the population to have a say in governance”, taking their interests into consideration. This resulted in dual benefits – firstly, it granted individuals access to knowledge resources which heightened interest in public discourse, solidifying an institution’s relevance to society. Secondly, the public were incentivised to contribute their ideas and suggestions which allowed for continuous renewal of institutional knowledge. Furthermore, their research added that such institutions limited the amount of power that “politicians and political elites” had on society, reducing barriers between groups of people. An example highlighted in their research was the enforcement of property rights by colonial institutions. When property rights were absent, predation on the masses were commonplace such as land expropriation and exaction of higher taxes, increasing resentment between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. When property rights were respected, it incentivised investment and participation in economic activities, leading to greater collaboration between groups of people. Thus, we observe how inclusive institutions, both directly and indirectly, contributed to greater knowledge sharing and transfer in society.
Lastly, Inclusive Institutions are drivers of knowledge creation and adoption. One of the central questions examined was why institutions failed to reform, when it was evident that the adoption of certain knowledge or technologies could yield societal benefits. Following from the earlier point – firstly, reduced barriers between the political elite and the masses created a more conducive environment for innovation and greater technology adoption. Secondly, reduced barriers allowed for a more equitable redistribution of power between a nation’s rulers and its people. In inclusive institutions, the political elite were less likely to see innovation and technological advancements as a threat to their hold on political power, otherwise known as the political replacement effect. Instead, they are likely to encourage the promotion of such knowledge – elite-driven innovation – as a calculated way of maintaining confidence with their citizens and ensuring their continued mandate to rule. Thus, inclusive institutions provide conducive conditions for pluralism, constraints on power and market competition which drive the creation and adoption of new knowledge in society.
How can individuals contribute to institution building?
From the above discussion, institutions are undoubtedly important to shaping the societies we live in. Yet the question remains: if institutions are important, how does one support this notion of institution building. It is probably true that most of us don’t see ourselves as ‘Institution Builders’. To the average person, eking out a living or being a caregiver often takes priority over philosophical and lofty notions of institution building; a matter best left to policymakers or senior management. However, when institutions are broken, it leaves much to be desired by those affected. For example, when a hospital fails to provide reasonable due care for a loved one while charging excessively on medical bills; or when rulers leverage fear and oppressive tactics to control its people. Not only are institutions important for KM but they are vital to stability and social security. As individuals, there is more to lose when we fail to recognise their value in society. In this section, we provide three practical ways that individuals can contribute towards institution building.
1. Take stock and continually refine knowledge
Every individual can play their part as a knowledge steward by taking stock of knowledge in one’s role or expertise and continuously refining it. For example, a commissioned research revealed that five billion people lacked access to safe surgical care globally, prompting increased research and participation in supporting universal health coverage. To that end, knowledge of safe surgical practices such as integrating processes between community healthcare providers and hospitals for safe and timely treatment continue to be developed13 In 2007, the WHO initiated a Safe Surgery Lives Program which introduced a 19-item surgical and safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality rates during surgery14. Apart from knowledge sharing, flagging and fixing of harmful practices or reinforcing knowledge of best practices are also essential. As individuals, we build institutional knowledge by surfacing, codifying, and socialising it (SECI Model)15. Over time, these practices would eventually accrue to a robust body of knowledge that could potentially benefit society.
2. Challenge assumptions and ask long-term questions
In refining knowledge, one must continue to challenge current conventions and assumptions – will this knowledge stay relevant for future needs? Institutions should neither be tempted to focus solely on present-day concerns nor force-fit today’s solutions for tomorrow’s problems16. One example is how Singapore has remained resourceful in ensuring adequate water supply for its people. In Singapore, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) which is Singapore’s National Water Agency and primary institution to safeguard its water needs, oversees four national ‘taps’ – imported water, local catchment water, desalinated water, and NEWater which is highly purified, treated used water. While current strategies are adequate, Singapore’s water demand is expected to double by 2065 to almost 1 billion gallons per day17. As individuals, we help institutions avoid inertia and remain relevant by challenging assumptions and asking long-term questions like how PUB is supported by its members in sourcing for novel solutions to meet the state’s future water needs.
3. Willingness to seek and share knowledge with others
Today, electronic knowledge repositories have eased storage and contribution of knowledge – even for institutions. This includes processes such as archival, indexing and retrieval which can be performed remotely and seamlessly. While the aim of these repositories is to enhance knowledge reuse for subsequent users, they often fall short of this goal18. To address this, Boh highlighted the importance of social processes to complement the use of knowledge repositories. Seeking assistance from knowledge’ originators and understanding their frame of reference, greatly enhanced the efficacy of knowledge reuse19. Firstly, individuals must take initiative to clarify assumptions and frameworks with the originator prior to using a piece of knowledge. Secondly, individuals must ensure that knowledge learnt is shared unreservedly, including how knowledge was previously used and its benefits (e.g., enhanced efficiency, increased customer satisfaction). To build strong institutions, not only does knowledge need to be well-retained but it also needs to be understood and effectively transferred to the next generation.
A final word
Is contributing to Institution Building the same as contributing to my organisation or current place of employment? While there are certainly overlaps in terms of outcomes, the lens adopted is slightly nuanced. As highlighted earlier, institutions transcend any single organisation. When organisations adopt the lens of the institution, there is better alignment of its mission and purpose to the larger operating environment. Furthermore, when organisations champion change and spearhead the development of good practices, they are also pushing the frontiers of their respective institutions, ensuring its continued relevance to society.
Conclusion
In this paper, we discussed what institutions are and how their relationship is integral to both organisations and society. Drawing on the research of Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, we highlighted the importance of inclusive institutions from a KM perspective; first, for knowledge retention and promotion; second, for knowledge sharing and transfer; and third, as drivers of knowledge creation and adoption. If knowledge is the lifeblood of an institution, then how are we preserving, refining and passing it on to future generations? In this paper, we outlined three practical ways of how individuals could participate in building institutions: taking stock and continually refining knowledge in one’s role; challenging assumptions and asking long-term questions; and being willing to seek and share knowledge with others. Regardless of one’s role or status, each of us can contribute to building strong institutions. Are you an institution builder or merely a spectator? These aren’t abstract questions – they are the very foundations to securing our future.
Header image source: Created by Amoz Yeo using DALL-E, ChatGPT 4o.
References:
- Robinson, P., & Levin, Y. ( 2020, May 8). The Importance of Institutions with Yuval Levin. Uncommon Knowledge, Hoover Institution. ↩
- Lawrence, T. B. (2017). Power, institutions and organizations. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 477-506. ↩
- SG101. (2025, Mar 17). Introduction of National Service. SG101. ↩
- NLB. (2015). National Service becomes compulsory. NLB. ↩
- Glückler, J., Suddaby, R., & Lenz, R. (2018). On the Spatiality of Institutions and Knowledge. In Knowledge and Institutions (pp. 1-19). Springer International Publishing. ↩
- Leftwich, A. (2006). What are institutions? Research Programme, Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG) Briefing Paper One. ↩
- Drew, C. (2023, September 15). Formal Institutions: Definition and Examples. Helpful Professor. ↩
- Chell, E. (1987). What are Organizations?. In The Psychology of Behaviour in Organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ↩
- Zinkina, J., Christian, D., Grinin, L., Ilyin, I., Andreev, A., Aleshkovski, I., … & Korotayev, A. (2019). The first “Golden Age” of globalization (1870–1914). In A Big History of Globalization: The Emergence of a Global World System (pp. 195-224). Springer International Publishing. ↩
- Hiers, W., & Wimmer, A. (2013). Is nationalism the cause or consequence of the end of empire? In Nationalism and War, 212-54. ↩
- Wasserstein, B. (2019). Colonial Office, Great Britain. Encyclopedia.com. ↩
- Nobel Prize Committee. (2024). Scientific Background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024 (No. 2024-2). Nobel Prize Committee. ↩
- Meara, J. G., Leather, A. J., Hagander, L., Alkire, B. C., Alonso, N., Ameh, E. A., … & Yip, W. (2015). Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. The Lancet, 386(9993), 569-624. ↩
- Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A. H. S., Dellinger, E. P., … & Gawande, A. A. (2009). A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England journal of medicine, 360(5), 491-499. ↩
- Adesina, A. O., & Ocholla, D. N. (2019). The SECI Model in Knowledge Management Practices: Past, Present and Future. Mousaion, 37(3). ↩
- Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115-125. ↩
- PUB. (2025, Mar 26). Singapore’s Water Loop. PUB. ↩
- Hinds, P. J., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why Organizations Don’t “Know What They Know”: Cognitive and Motivational. Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management, 1. ↩
- Boh, W. F. (2008). Reuse of knowledge assets from repositories: A mixed methods study. Information & Management, 45(6), 365-375. ↩
