ORGANISATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CREATION
08/07/2013
Introduction
The goal for Critical Action Learning, with few exceptions, is organisational
viability. Whilst my management research background, linguistic tradition, and
cultural paradigms are deeply rooted in positivism, the path to knowledge
creation and ultimate organisational strength must move beyond strict science
and rigour. Through my studies and interactions in the Knowledge Creation
module, I developed a new paradigm of change for my organisation founded
upon the realist synthesis framework of management research, a discovery and
cultivation of tacit knowledge, and the leading into collective reflexivity.
Problem Identification
At the beginning of the Knowledge Creation Module, the first segment of my
Initial Problem Statement read as follows: “the Transit Operations
Subcontracting Environment has changed overnight and my company is
having a difficult time navigating the new turbulent waters.” The second
sentence stated: “we must analyse recent stinging losses, understand the
rapidly changing competitive environment, and develop a new plan to
maintain and grow our contracts into the next decade.” Whilst the first half of
my statement remains in tact, my action plan has changed dramatically through
my increased understanding of the context and content of Critical Action
Learning.
As my problem identification initially evolved, I discovered that my organisation
operates under Anderson’s (2001, pp. 395ff) description of a low rigour, low
practical analysis management research system labeled “Puerile Science.” In
our distinctively hierarchical environment, we respond reactively, as opposed to
proactively, and make decisions on a whim, as opposed to applying research,
criticality, or reflection. Soon after, I came across an initial antidote to this
deficiency through the realist synthesis management research methodology of
which “the purpose is to articulate underlying programme theories and then to
interrogate the existing evidence to find out whether and where these theories
are pertinent and productive” (p. 74).
Further, in our discussion of management research as knowledge/science versus
craft, Leidner et al (2006) integrated the idea of tacit knowledge into a healthy
management research through social constructivism: "rather than building formal
systems to manage knowledge, the focus of this approach is to build social
environments or communities of practice necessary to facilitate the sharing of
tacit understanding" (p. 19). Note, the practical application of social
constructivism, a topic I have addressed at length through the module, finds its
application through collective reflexivity.
Finally, in effort to bring solution to my stated problem and to redefine the second
half of my predictively United State’s American positivist solution statement; I
must move beyond a scientific study of the environment, inputs, outputs, and
data, and develop Barley & Kunda’s (1992) suggestion that through a framework
of collective reflexivity, we will shape “workers' identities, emotions, attitudes, and
beliefs” (p. 384).
Pertinent Literature
As mentioned above, the three elements of response to my problem –
establishing organisational viability – are found in a management research
guided by realist synthesis, uncovering tacit knowledge, and building collective
reflexivity. There is not a lack of material addressing each of these principles,
however, the field is surprisingly young in the development of a practical theory.
First, in regards to realist synthesis in management research, Rycroft-Malone et
al (2012) cite many other scholarly sources in their own article expounding that
“realist review [synthesis] has [recently] emerged as a strategy for synthesizing
evidence and focuses on providing explanations for why interventions may or
may not work, in what contexts, how, and in what circumstances” (p. 3).
In regards to tacit knowledge, (explored in my Critical Literature Review), I
highlighted a timely and apropos journal article by Kothari et al (2011) that
considered the slow discovery of tacit knowledge and its limited exposure in
rigour or relevant literature of the day. Therefore, as I move from a historically
purely positivist management research approach into a realist synthesis
methodology, a key principle is the engagement of (tacit) knowledge that is not
easily expressed/apparent. Regarding their study, Kothari et al (2011) stated
thus: “[we] add value to the larger landscape by bringing attention to a broader
notion of knowledge than that represented by research findings” as [tacit
knowledge] is “subconsciously understood and applied; difficult to articulate;
and…shared through interactive conversation and shared experience” (p. 3).
This concept was agreed upon by Van Maanen (1995) who expresses that we
must not limit ourselves to that which is easily seen through the scientific
disciplines and “underplay what other approaches to knowledge might teach us”
(p. 133).
Further, Toom (2012) contends that the framework for developing tacit
knowledge has yet to be fully developed through other disciplines: “tacit
knowledge can also be approached from the psychological point of view; from
this perspective, it is comparable to routines, schemes, scripts, and agendas” (p.
627). And Johnson & Duberley (2000) explores the subjective nature of the
quest for knowledge and provides a framework for tacit knowledge’s apparent
elusiveness: “so what a scientist observes is not independent of the process of
observing but is an outcome of the scientist's methodological interaction with,
and conceptual constitution of, their objects of knowledge” (p. 64).
All of the above provides an opportunity for explicit knowledge creation in my
practice, and beckons further study of these very recent philosophies in
management research and critical action learning. The ultimate goal is the
implementation of solid research that brings lasting results/organisational
viability. MacCurtain et al (2009) express the compelling nature of collective
reflexivity (and my opportunity for further literature review): “reflexivity is a
multifaceted concept involving questioning, reviewing, evaluating, debating and
adapting and hence, more than merely reflecting on what has already taken
place. These behaviours can create a ‘conceptual readiness’ for innovation as
the continuous monitoring and adaptation enable the team to develop new
meaning and shared understanding and are likely to lead to effective innovation
implementation” (p. 2).
My Problem and Critical Action Learning
The overarching framework described above is both foundational and a goal for
critical action learning in regards to my organisation’s current problem. However,
the journey from puerile science to collective reflexivity may need to be bridged
by lesser-evolved methodologies. Whilst expressed somewhat controversially in
our studies – particularly with the non-North American sources – evidence-based
management is a foundational principle that can lead through rigour into
relevance, or from science into craft. For example, Rousseau (2006) contends
that evidence-based management “derives principles from research evidence
and translates them into practices that solve organizational problems” (p. 256) –
a bridge I may need to consider.
It is also important to note that amongst scholars and practitioners, the principles
of Critical Action Learning are not universally agreed upon. For example, the
continuing discussions on Positivism, Post-positivism, Critical Theory, and
Postmodernism create different frameworks of management research and action
learning that may find better application in various cultural (or linguistic)
environments. “Advocates of positivism argue that the only legitimate source of
knowledge are sense data, through which reality is experienced” (Holt & Thorpe,
2008, Kindle Locations 3292-3293). Moving beyond the positivist framework and
engaging social constructivism, a critical theorist will add in the complexities of
“the inherent connection between politics, values and knowledge and, thereby,
provok[ing] a deeper consideration of the politics and values” (Johnson &
Duberley, 2000, p. 115). The postmodernist goes a step further with substantial
distrust of what has been previously established.
With the above almost dialectic philosophies, where is my organisation currently
positioned in critical action learning and management research and where should
we set course?
As was discussed at length in our weekly learning set discussions, my
organisation’s paradigm is succinctly United State’s American. Although we are
an international company with a global reach, our headquarters, staff, and
decision-makers are all domestic, and this was true from the founding of the
organisation several decades ago. Clegg (2002) describes the management
research environment of the United States as one that favours “economic,
biological, or engineering models rather than a conception of social relations as
the core of organizational life” (p. 435). This positivistic paradigm, dependent on
pure, technical data is also addressed by Abrahamson (1991): “[this] dominant
perspective in the diffusion of innovation literature reinforces proinnovation
biases because it relies on a model of choice in which adopters make
independent, rational choices guided by goals of technical efficiency” (p. 590).
With my historical environment in focus, in order to evolve and develop a realist
synthesis management research methodology and cultivate tacit knowledge, the
key is to engage social constructivism through a collective reflexivity. Gómez &
Ballard (2013) describe the long-term benefit of collective reflexivity as such: “in
this sense, organizational long-term viability is based on organizational intangible
capabilities such as tacitness [sic] of knowledge and absorptive capacity
embedded in different functions within the organization” (p. 210). In Module
Three, little time was spent discussing the engagement/deployment of explicit
knowledge created and/or framework going forward. However, collective
reflexivity is a viable engagement and bridge to my practice moving forward.
Applying Critical Action Learning in My Organisation
Gómez & Ballard (2013) illustrated a compelling framework through which critical
action learning can occur – with a goal of organisational viability. Not only does
the collective reflexivity process fit within the realist synthesis philosophy and
seek to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, but also is a
methodology that can work within my current organisation.
(See Figure 1 below for framework).
Figure 1 (Gómez & Ballard, 2013, p. 210)
In order to provide (facilitate) the conditions and develop feedback cycles
required to move into collective reflexivity (as illustrated in Figure 1), we must
engage with Gibbs (1988) description of management research stakeholders’
four styles of learning “in order to learn effectively…and utilise the abilities
associated with each of the four learning styles [experience, reflection,
experimentation, conceptualisation]” (Section 3), through four distinct framing
activities: develop the plan, carry out the plan, observe/analyse/interpret results,
and reflect on the results to develop systems. Adherence to this framework will
create, as illustrated, organisational learning and viability.
What are the principles of my Critical Action Learning framework?
1. Develop the Action Plan
In developing a plan, there are a few principles foundational to collective
reflexivity’s facilitating conditions: first, worry and uncertainty is expected and
healthy! Segal (2011) reflects: “why is worry so important? It was Freud who
over a century ago articulated for us the way in which fear and anxiety are states
of heightened arousal in which we become more attentive to the situation in
which we are” (p. 481). Second, Hinings and Greenwood (2002) concur with
Gómez & Ballard (2013) that “organizations are neither uniformly benign in their
effects, nor are they separable from the sociocultural context that they shape and
to which they respond” (Hinnings & Greenwood, 2002, p. 415). Our natural
positivism’s intent is to separate the social construct from management research,
so as I develop the plan, I must lead engagement of the uncertainty, seek
directed collaboration, and be cognisant of the stakeholder/researchers’
subjectivity.
2. Carry out the Action Plan
As illustrated in Figure 1, information allocation is a key function in collective
reflexivity (and realist synthesis). Gómez & Ballard (2013) state “we define
information allocation as forwarding new information to the organizational actor
who can better act upon this information immediately and/or store it for future
organizational actions” (p. 209). There must be an owner or small set of
director/owners in the process of critical action learning. Relatedly, in carrying
out the plan, Johnson & Duberley (2000) state that these process leaders must:
“maintain consistency with regard to the epistemological assumptions they do
deploy - something which would be enhanced by them being more aware of, and
indeed more critical of, the substance, origins and ramifications of those
assumptions” (p. 177). Finally, as the plan leaders/owners consider methodology
and carry out the action plan, critical action learning provides flexibility in
opportunity: Eden and Huxham (1996) state that “action research provides the
opportunity for cyclical data collection through exploiting more continuous and
varied opportunities than is occasioned by more controlled research” (p. 83).
3. Observe, Analyse, and Interpret Results
In my Module Three studies, one of the key solution areas in my organisation’s
problem comes in via cultivation of tacit knowledge and its conversion into
explicit knowledge. Once results and observation data has been obtained, I must
lead social constructivism – collective reflexivity – to unlock the treasures of tacit
knowledge and strengthen ultimate organisational viability. So, a model to
process this and all other data results is key. Gómez & Ballard (2013) concur:
“we further suggest information allocation and collective reflexivity are dynamic
capabilities because they develop through the configuration of organizational
characteristics such as presence awareness, organizational identification,
perceived environmental uncertainty, perceptions of time as scarce, length of
action-outcome feedback cycles, and future temporal focus” (p. 209).
4. Reflect on the Results to Develop Systems
To summarise, the above framework for employing critical action learning
through realist synthesis in my organisation and its cultivation of tacit knowledge
is through Gómez & Ballard’s (2013) model of collective reflexivity. Therefore, as
we enter into the reflection stage post-engagement, and as we (my organisation)
move past our traditional positivism, develop an owner/leader of the process,
engage in knowledge development, produce feedback/reflection loops, and
develop a culture of adaptability; we will develop lasting, effective change –
organisational viability. In regards to the power of this reflection, Hibbert et al
(2010) described such a process as one “in which one comes to choose to
engage with a particular community and be transformed by it” (p. 56). The key
here is reflexivity-based transformation through social constructivism.
And, as I mentioned in the Learning Set process in Week Eight, as we implement
such processes, a risk in critical action learning is in discovering the need for
controversial, deep change. “The more objective one becomes in management
research, the more engaged in broadening stake-holder participation, and the
more rigorous one becomes in analysis; typically, the status quo finds the
greatest challenge” (Coerber, 2013, Week 8 Learning Set). However, the reward
will be new reflective systems that bring enduring organisational viability.
Current Status & Outcome
How far have I/we come in implementing this process of collective reflexivity?
One of the greatest challenges of such a comprehensive programme of study –
this University of Liverpool DBA – is in the substantial amount of learning that
occurs in a fairly short amount of time. My initial study of the realist synthesis
style of management research was discovered within the first two weeks of the
module, the power of tacit knowledge mid-module, and in the last two weeks I
developed my philosophy of social constructivism’s solution through collective
reflexivity. Therefore, I am at the beginning of my journey of moving beyond
positivism.
The most profound changes I have implemented thus far have arisen from the
initial module challenge to my positivist methods in management research.
Although I once viewed such a rigorous framework as highly objective, through
the course of study, I find it instead masking solution-inhibiting subjectivity. In
order to move beyond this, I have changed my process of decision-making at my
local division through engaging a much broader sampling of stakeholders in
management research. Through enhanced communication, directed committee
work, deeper reflection, the search for tacit knowledge discovery, and higherlevel criticality, I have made significant changes in my local division, such as a
new, more efficient, employee-friendly driving schedule. (Even a collaboratively
designed uniform has come from the process!) And, these changes have
brought cost savings and efficiencies previously unknown in our division or
organisation. In summary, as our understanding/engagement of the
sociological/political environment increases, so does the efficacy of our change
management.
Moving forward, I will use the local model I am creating with my key stakeholder
managers – and our subsequent successes – to create an adaptable framework
of critical action learning and knowledge creation within my company. As I
oversee a microenvironment where I can test and prove the framework’s
effectiveness, I can subsequently use it to develop broader organisational model
of collective reflexivity to address our business development environment
challenges (as clarified in my problem statement). A positive consequence of
critical action learning is improved operational performance, which translates to
cost savings: this will drive the executive stakeholders to ask, “why does it work?”
and “how can we do replicate this everywhere?”
Conclusion
Segal (2011) reflected: “the question that we need to raise is: what kinds of
framework enable us to lead effectively in times where not only the political and
organisational worlds are uncertain but also leaders themselves feel quite
uncertain and often detach or disengage themselves from the uncertainty to
manage and appear to lead” (p. 469)? The transit environment in the United
States, due to funding cuts and new foreign and domestic competition, is in a
period of unprecedented change; and we are asking ourselves, “How do we
survive – what do we need to build?” My study through Module Three
Knowledge Creation has led me to a compelling framework solution: collective
reflexivity. As I evolve past my cultural positivistic paradigm and deploy
management research through a realist synthesis model – with the goal of
cultivating and converting tacit knowledge into usable learning – I will achieve a
collective reflexivity that will empower adaptable, long-term organisational
viability.
Bibliography
Abrahamson, E. (1991) ‘Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection
of innovations’, Academy of Management Review, 16, pp.586-612, EBSCOhost
[Online]. Available from:
http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=Acad
emy+of+Management+Review&volume=16&issue=&spage=586&date=1991,
(viewed: 8 July 2013).
Anderson, N., Heriot, P., & Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001) ‘The practitioner-researcher
divide in industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology: where are we now
and where do we go from here?’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74 (4), pp.391-411, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from:
http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=Jour
nal+of+Occupational+and+Organizational+Psychology&volume=74&issue=4&sp
age=391&date=2001, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Barley, S.R. and Kunda, G. (1992) ‘Design and devotion: surges of rational and
normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 37, pp.363-399, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from:
http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=Admi
nistrative+Science+Quarterly&volume=37&issue=&spage=363&date=1992,
(viewed: 8 July 2013).
Clegg, S.R. (2002) ‘“Lives in the balance”: A comment on Hinings and
Greenwood’s “Disconnects and consequences in organization
theory?”’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (3), pp.428-441, EBSCOhost
[Online]. Available
from: http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title
=Administrative+Science+Quarterly&volume=47&issue=3&spage=428&date=200
2, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Coerber, Daniel. (26 June 2013). University of Liverpool DBA Programme
Knowledge Creation Module, Week 8, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (March 1996) ‘Action research for management
research’, British Journal of Management, 7, pp. 75-86, EBSCOhost [Online].
Available from:
http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=Britis
h+Journal+of+Management&volume=7&issue=1&spage=75&date=1996,
(viewed: 8 July 2013).
Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing. London: Further Education Unit [Online].
Available from: http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/gibbs/, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Gómez, L, & Ballard, D (2013), 'Communication for the Long Term: Information
Allocation and Collective Reflexivity as Dynamic Capabilities', Journal Of
Business Communication, 50, 2, pp. 208-220, Business Source Complete,
EBSCOhost, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Hibbert, P., Coupland, C. & MacIntosh, R. (2010) ‘Reflexivity: recursion and
relationality in research processes’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management, 5 (1), pp. 47-62, Emerald Insight [Online]. Available from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/journals.htm?issn=17465648&volume=5&issue=1&articleid=1860330&show=html, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Hinings, C.R. & Greenwood, R. (2002), ‘ASQ Forum: disconnects and
consequences in organization theory?’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (3),
pp.411–421, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available
from:http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=
Administrative+Science+Quarterly&volume=47&issue=3&spage=411&date=2002
, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Holt, R. and Thorpe, R. (2008). The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management
Research. London: Sage. Kindle Edition, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000). Understanding Management Research: An
Introduction to Epistemology. London: Sage, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Kothari, A, Bickford, J, Edwards, N, Dobbins, M, & Meyer, M (2011), 'Uncovering
tacit knowledge: a pilot study to broaden the concept of knowledge in knowledge
translation', BMC Health Services Research, 11, p. 198, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost,
(viewed: 8 July 2013).
Leidner, D., Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. (2006). The role of culture in knowledge
management: A case study of two global firms, International Journal of eCollaboration, 2(1), 17-40, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
MacCurtain, S, Flood, P, Ramamoorty, N, West, M, & Dawson, J, (2009), ‘The
Top Team, Trust, Reflexivity, Knowledge Sharing and Innovation’, Academy Of
Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, pp. 1-6, Business Source Complete,
EBSCOhost, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-Based Policy [Electronic Book] : A Realist
Perspective / Ray Pawson, n.p.: London : SAGE, 2006., University of Liverpool
Catalogue, EBSCOhost, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Rousseau, D.M. (2006) ‘Is there such a thing as evidence-based management?’
Academy of Management Review, 31 (2), pp.256-269, EBSCOhost [Online].
Available from:
http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=Acad
emy+of+Management+Review&volume=31&issue=2&spage=256&date=2006,
(viewed: 8 July 2013).
Rycroft-Malone, J, McCormack, B, Hutchinson, A, DeCorby, K, Bucknall, T, Kent,
B, Schultz, A, Snelgrove-Clarke, E, Stetler, C, Titler, M, Wallin, L, & Wilson, V
(2012), 'Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research',
Implementation Science, 7, 1, pp. 33-42, Academic Search Complete,
EBSCOhost, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Segal, S (2011), 'A Heideggerian Perspective on the Relationship Between
Mintzberg's Distinction Between Engaged and Disconnected Management: The
Role of Uncertainty in Management', Journal Of Business Ethics, 103, 3, pp. 469483, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Toom, A (2012), 'Considering the Artistry and Epistemology of Tacit Knowledge
and Knowing', Educational Theory, 62, 6, pp. 621-640, Education Research
Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 May 2013.
Tranfield, D, Denyer, D, & Smart, P (2003) 'Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic
review', British Journal Of Management, 14, 3, pp. 207-222, Social Sciences
Citation Index, EBSCOhost, (viewed: 8 July 2013).
Van Maanen, J. (1995) ‘Style as theory’, Organization Science, 6 (1), pp.133143, EBSCOhost [Online]. Available from:
http://ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login?url=http://openurl.ac.uk.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/?title=Orga
nization+Science&volume=6&issue=1&spage=133&date=1995, (viewed: 8 July
2013).