EXPLORINGTHE SUPERVISOR ROLE, AS A FACILITATOR OF
KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN TEAMS.
Exploring the Supervisor role, as a Facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams.
Christina Mary MacNeil.
Senior Lecturer,
The Business School,
Oxford Brookes University,
Wheatley Campus
Wheatley,
Oxford.
OX33 1HX.
Tel: (01865-485872)
Fax :(01865-485830)
e-mail: cmmacneil@ brookes.ac.uk
Key words:
Line-manager, supervisor, knowledge sharing, teams, and facilitators.
Abstract:
This working paper intends to explore the themes and implications from literature,
concerning the role of the supervisor as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams.
The paper will be structured in the following manner: first there will be a background
discussion concerning trends for devolving HR responsibilities to line managers.
Then the role of the line manager, who is a supervisor will be defined and discussed.
In particular, the implications for the supervisor role of their devolved responsibility
for people, which by implication includes learning and development (Harrison, 2002).
There will be a summary of the barriers to knowledge sharing in the workplace.
Then the paper will discuss whether the supervisor’s intervention as a facilitator,
could provide a link between individual and collective tacit knowledge sharing in
teams.
Finally research questions, and a future research agenda will be outlined.
Exploring the Supervisor role, as a Facilitator of knowledge sharing in work
teams.
Introduction.
1
Strategic HRM and Knowledge Management.
Strategic Human Resource Management (HRM) will involve the integration of HRM
with business objectives that are implemented through the devolvement of HRM
activities to line managers (Brewster and Larsen, 1992; Boxall and Purcell, 2003(a);
Budhwar, 1998, Hall and Torrington, 1998; Hope-Hailey et al 2002;).
If a desired strategic outcome is assumed to superior organisational
performance in comparison to competitors, then this could be achieved through the
effective management of people. Strategic HRM should translate into the appropriate
philosophies, policies and practices, for the management of people in an organisation
(Schuler and Jackson, 1987). Thus line managers will be important for the successful
implementation of HRM strategy and processes, helping to achieve the desired
strategic outcome of superior organisational performance (Currie and Procter, 2001).
It could be assumed that to ensure business success, an organisation should
pursue an HRM strategy, which is designed to retain and develop high quality
employees (Huselid, 1999). Amit and Shoemaker, (1993), makes a crucial distinction
between resources; “stocks of available factors that are owned or controlled by the
firm e.g. technology, management information systems (35), and capabilities, “these
are firm specific and developed over time, representing the communication and
exchange of information through the firms human capital “e.g. brand management,
reliable service; short product life cycles, quality of customer service (35).
The organisation would aim to utilise the collective knowledge and skills of
its employees, thus creating intangible assets, which are unique and cannot be easily
replicated by competitors (Barney, 1999; Boxall, and Steeneveld, 1999; Mueller, and
2
Kamoche, 2000.) That this strategic outcome would provide core competence, that
translates into valuable intellectual capital for the organisation (Nonaka, and
Takeuchi, 1995 (a), St Leon Valentine, 2002). Prahalad and Hamel, (1990), identify
the importance of developing core competence to ensure both the survival and
competitive success of organisations. “Core competencies are collective learning in
the organisation, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate
multiple streams of technologies “(82).
The linkage between HRM policies and practices and knowledge management
in organisations, is still a new area of research. (Storey, and Quintas, 2001). This
strategic approach to HRM emphasises integrating human resources with according to
the unique configuration of the business and its environment. That people represent a
strategic resource, which is critical to the organisations overall performance (Purcell,
1993, Storey, 1993, Boxall, and Purcell, 2003(b)).
However the ‘management’ of individual learning, to ensure its subsequent
transfer into collective organisational knowledge is a notoriously difficult process to
control in organisations ( Crossan et al; 1999; Schien, 1993; Senge, 1990). A
distinction which is frequently made concerning the meaning of knowledge in
organisations; is that explicit knowledge can be articulated or copied, whereas tacit
knowledge cannot be so easily communicated to another person (Nonaka, and
Takeuchi 1995(b)). There are persistent barriers to the exchange of knowledge,
preventing the communication of tacit knowledge between both management and
employees in the workplace (Argyris and Schon, 1978, Hislop, 2002).
3
Assuming that tacit knowledge and skills could be learned through continuous,
contact within teams, and then communicated during this “apprenticeship like
relationship” (Sobol, and Lei, 1994: 171). Then tacit skills could be learned and
practiced by the individual employee, with the team providing a forum for the
creation and sharing of knowledge. Supervisors as facilitators of knowledge sharing
could provide an important communication link that activates the process of
individual tacit knowledge into shared collective tacit knowledge.
If line managers as supervisors, were able to facilitate the process of
knowledge sharing in their teams. Therefore it would be useful to identify how
supervisors as facilitators of knowledge sharing, could maximise their strategic
contribution to the organisation.
HRM and the Line Manager.
The line manager role in the HRM literature, usually concentrates on the
degree of HRM responsibilities, which are devolved to line managers in
organisations. There is an implicit power relationship, which characterises the
working situation between HRM managers and line managers in organisations. This is
broadly illustrated, in descriptions capturing the extent to which the line manager is
delegated responsibility for HRM activities (Brewster, and Larsen, 2000, Ulrich,
1999). There is a continuum within power relationship, between HRM departments
and line managers in organisations. This situation represents one of many political
tensions and conflicts that are inherent in nature of the line manager’s role.
4
Line managers are often referred to in the literature as middle managers.
Middle managers can be seen as the suppliers of information to senior managers, and
ultimately as recipients of the decisions, which are taken by senior managers
(Thompson, 1967). Middle managers are often not included in the decision-making
processes, which determine the strategic direction chosen by senior management in
the organisation. Nevertheless middle managers do want to be involved in these
‘strategic conversations’; in order to build power coalitions and gain insight into
organisational sense making (Weick, 1979). There is research, which shows a positive
relationship, between middle managers involvement in strategic processes and the
organisations subsequent performance. The involvement of middle managers
improves the quality of the strategic decisions taken, and thus creates consensus for
successful strategy implementation (Wooldridge, and Floyd, 1990 (a)).
The middle managers influence does not come from any hierarchical
authority, but from “a unique knowledge base, and their ability to integrate both
strategic and operating level information “(Yip et al, 2001: 1328). Thus middle
managers “mediate, negotiate, and interpret connections between the organisations
institutional (strategic) and technical (operational) levels “ (Wooldridge and Floyd,
1990: 466 (b)). The main strategic advantage which middle managers possess in
comparison to senior managers, is that of being closer to the organisations daily
operations e.g. customers. This gives middle managers specific knowledge concerning
organisational realities, which can then be translated into their understanding of
appropriate strategic choices.
5
Therefore any definition of middle managers will be context sensitive. The
middle managers’ role; will be influenced by a combination of the managers own
professional or functional background, the size, structure and culture of the
organisation. (Currie and Procter, 2001). Nevertheless for the purposes of this paper,
middle or line managers are defined as,” business managers responsible for
coordinating and directing all resources in the business unit in pursuit of bottom line
profits “ (Legge, 1989).
The changing role of the Supervisor.
The line manager of interest here is a supervisor or team leader, who is usually
positioned at the bottom end of the management hierarchy. The supervisor in their
role as a line manager, shares the political inequalities and anomalies concerning the
power and responsibility of their role with the middle manager. However, the term
middle manager is not considered to be appropriate here, and thus will not be applied
to the supervisor. The term middle manager does not fully express, the context for and
characteristics of the changing role of the supervisor.
Thus the terms supervisor and line manager will be used interchangeably, to
include both supervisors and team leaders. It is also recognised, that the supervisor or
team leader may not have the status of being a manager in some organisations. But for
the purposes of this research, the supervisor is considered to be a manager because
they are directly accountable for obtaining results through people in their
organisations. In comparison with an individual worker, who does not have this same
accountability to senior management for the work of others? A team is defined as, “a
small number of people with complimentary skills who are committed to a common
6
purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually
accountable” (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993: 19).
The changing context of the supervisor’s role.
Those organisations that have experienced structural change through
downsizing; including the removal and reduction of layers creating flatter, horizontal
work structures, processes and team working (Applebaum et al, 1999). In addition the
application of business process engineering in organisations, has made supervisors
accountable for increasingly demanding performance targets and measurement. This
has impacted on the supervisor role (Lowe, 1993; Rose et al; 1987). This changing
and demanding context means the supervisor is increasingly the focal point for
managing teams, and is the interface between senior management and their team.
Thus supervisors delegate more responsibility to their team, in order to improve
quality and output levels through continuous improvement.
In this changing context, the supervisors are becoming a crucial,
communication link between senior management and teams in organisations
(McHugh et al. 1999). On the basis that the supervisor could represent a valuable, but
often overlooked learning resource for the organisational learning and change.
Supervisors are at the interface between the senior management and team structures in
organisations, where they can strongly influence both learning and change.
Particularly if supervisors were to have a role encouraging knowledge sharing in
teams, thus helping to build individualised, fragmented learning into a collective
capability.
7
The complexity and size of supervisor’s role is undergoing changes, due to the
increasing competitiveness and changes that are faced by most organisations in their
internal and external environments. Supervisors are required to,“ productively manage
the business and continuously be looking for opportunities for quality improvement”
(Bunning, 1996:9). Historically supervisors usually obtain their position through their
technical expertise, thus most supervisors do not possess management qualifications.
Unfortunately, the changing context for the supervisor has lead to changing demands
for the supervisor’s role. This must result in a mismatch between the requirements of
the supervisor role, and the capability of supervisors in some organisations.
Line managers as facilitators of knowledge sharing.
The previously discussed changes in the management environment have
encouraged supervisors to “ perceive their role as that of a facilitator not a command
and control manager “ (Zucchi, and Edwards, 2000: 214). A facilitator is a person
who provides the resources and opportunities for learning to take place, but does not
manage or control the learning process itself (Rogers, 1977). Thus learning gained
through the team knowledge sharing process, could provide core competence for the
organisation. Any understanding of the factors that influence the supervisor’s role as
a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams could be very important for achieving this
eventual outcome.
Barriers to knowledge sharing in organisations
8
Storey and Quintas (2001) argue that, the literature on knowledge management has a
dominant tendency to focus attention on the management of data and information.
Unfortunately this neglects consideration of the management of people, who are
actually responsible for creating the knowledge. ” Innovation depends on the ability to
manage, as a dynamic process, the generation or creation of new knowledge, as well
as the application, transformation and integration of existing knowledge” (347).
Thus knowledge can only be transformed into innovation when both individual and
collective learning has taken place, however innovation requires the organisation’s
culture to accept that mistakes and failure to represent learning e.g. rewarding risktaking.
Spender, (1996) argues that there should bean appropriate relationship
between the individual and the organisation, for the creation and sharing of
knowledge. Thus attempts to objectify knowledge into discrete elements, and separate
it from its source e.g. people, - is a mistake. Tacit knowledge is defined as, “ not
being abstracted form practice” (67). The most strategically important knowledge for
the organisation is the body of collective knowledge that is embedded in a community
of practice.
Scarbrough, and Carter, (2000), suggest whilst individuals create knowledge
this collective knowledge is accessed through communities of practice,“ groups of
people who may be distributed across an organisation, who share a common
dedication to specific work practices” (62). As distinct from teams designed to fulfil a
purpose or task, usually put together by management.
9
Kamoche, (1996) notes the difficulty of reconciling the ownership of
knowledge between the individual and the organisation. That there is a tension
between individuals need for freedom and antinomy in their learning, and
organisations need to make human resource capabilities firm specific “ to lock
expertise into organisational routines” (226) Kamoche, explores the HRM perspective
on the value of the people, when generating core capabilities, and competencies. That
“appropriability”, is the capacity of the firm to retain the ‘added-value’ that it creates
for its own benefit. Thus strategic assets will be dependent on the firm’s ability to
recruit and retain the best people from the external labour market.
Scarbrough, (1999) explores the manner in which organisations ‘appropriate’
workers knowledge for their own economic gain, rejecting the viewpoints of both
core competence and intellectual capital. Scarbrough, (1999) argues that these
concepts abstract the knowledge creation process, from the context in which it
originates -the employment relationship.
Dyerson, and Mueller, (1999) assert that management manage knowledge
through information flows, the manager’s role is to build’ localised’ learning into
systemic learning for the organisation, to ensure collaboration between the functional
and specialist groups within the organisation. According to Dyerson and Mueller,
(1999), all organisations are characterised by “distinctive corporate languages,
constructs and frameworks “ (633). Where there is a lack of coordination between
knowledge experts in the organizations, this encourages “ learning in isolation,
reinvention of the wheel, and a forgetting of valuable lessons learnt” (635). The
10
sharing of information in organisations will always be problematic, because of the
different orientations held by different groups e.g. experts, functional.
If knowledge is individualised, fragmented and not shared, then individuals
will learn separately, without the inclination to share their knowledge (MacNeil, 2001,
Kim, 1993).
The role of the supervisor as a facilitator encouraging knowledge
sharing in teams is important for developing the collective learning capability of the
organisations (Ellinger, and Bostrum, 1999,2002). Antonacopoulou, (1999), argues
that for learning to take place it is essential to have a context or climate, “which
encourages, facilitates, and rewards learning “ (220). That a ‘constructive’
organisational climate, will encourage individuals to have positive attititude to their
own learning, to be willing to develop, overcoming their resistance to learning.
Antonacopoulou, describes positive or negative attitudes, managers can have to
learning, and the effect this has on their own teams learning. Learning managers are
receptive to new learning experiences, willing to acknowledge their own mistakes and
failures as a form of learning.
The supervisor as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams.
Van Maurick (1994) notes that the term Facilitation is a much used but poorly
defined. Facilitation like leadership is “ one of the most observed, but least
understood phenomena known to man” (30). Van Maurick, 1994, suggests that the
facilitator’s objective is to create a positive outcome with the group becoming a
functioning team. This implies when the group becomes a fully functioning team, the
facilitators leaves. Whereas supervisors as facilitators have a continuing role,
11
encouraging knowledge sharing in the team. There would be a different power
relationship, and set of tensions between the supervisors as manager of the team.
Research questions.
The research questions relate to the role of the supervisor, facilitating Knowles
sharing in teams.

What role does the supervisor have for encouraging tacit knowledge sharing
in teams?

How does the supervisor facilitate tacit knowledge sharing?

What enabling factors might influence the learning relationship between the
supervisor and their team?
Research problems.
The major research problems, which impact on the research, design the
following:
1. That there is a difficulty operational sing the process of knowledge
sharing, between the supervisor and their team.
2. That a range of factors, and it could influence the learning environment in
any organisation could be difficult to isolate the influence of different
factors on the supervisor as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams.

Type of organisation

Size of organisation

Stage of team development

Development which supervisor has received for facilitation.
Methodology.
12
The choice of methodology is determined by the need to pursue an exploratory
research strategy. The setting for the research sample will be organisations, where the
research questions can be answered appropriately. That organisations must be chosen
as case studies, where comparisons can be made concerning the following factors
which may be influential for the research outcomes; 1. Teams. Organisations where team working is established as part of the
management structure.
2. Supervisor development. Organisations, which are either small or large in size,
which may influence the different levels of training and development, which
exits in the organisation. This may influence the access, which the supervisor
has had to training and development.
3. Learning climate. The extent to which an organisation purports to share
knowlege, and has a learning climate to support this e.g. values problemsolving
A research agenda for the future.
As organisations attempt to encourage tacit knowledge sharing, there is scope to
explore the role of the supervisor facilitating this process. There is need for
supervisors, to move from managing in a command and control style to the style of a
facilitator of tacit knowledge sharing in teams. However, there needs to be a greater
understanding of the context for knowledge sharing, and the potentials role of
supervisors as facilitators.
REFERENCE LIST.
13
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993) ‘Strategic assets and organisational rent’,
Strategic Management Journal, 14: 33-46.
Antonacopoulou, E. (1999). ‘Developing learning managers within learning
organisations’, in M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne, and L. Araujo, (eds.)
Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation: Developments in Theory
and Practice London, 2nd edn, Sage Publications Ltd pp. 217-242.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978) Organisational learning: A theory of the action
perspective. Reading, Britain: M.A. Addison-Wesley.
Applebaum, S.H. Lavigne-Schmidt, S. Peytchev, M. and Shapiro, B. (1999)
‘Downsizing: Measuring the costs of failure’, Journal of Management Development,
18 (5): 436-63.
Barney, J. (1999) ‘Looking inside for competitive advantage’, in R.S. Schuler, and
S.E. Jackson, (eds.) Strategic Human Resource Management: 128-141.Oxford,
Blackwell Publishers.
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (1992) ‘Human resource management in Europe:
Evidence from ten countries’, International Journal of HRM, 3 (3): 409-433.
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (2000) Human resource management in Northern
Europe: Trends, dilemmas and strategy, 1st edn, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
Boxall, P. and Steeneveld, P. (1999) ‘Human resource strategy and competitive
advantage: A longitudinal study of engineering consultancies’, Journal Of
Management Studies, 36 (4): 442-463.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy and human resource management, 1st edn,
Basingstoke, Britain: Palgrave Macmillan
Budhwar, P.S. (1998) ‘Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of
human resource management in the U.K.’, Personnel Review, 29, (2): 141-61.
Bunning, R. (1996) ‘Supervisory training that has turned a profit’, Personnel Review,
20 (9): 9-13.
Crossan, M.M; Lane, H. W; and White, R.E. (1999) ‘ An Organizational Learning
Framework: From Intuition to Institution ‘ Academy of Management Review; 24 (3):
522-537.
Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001) ‘Exploring the relationship between HR and middle
managers’, Human Resource Management Journal, 11 (3): 53-69.
Dyerson, R. and Mueller, F.U. (1999) ‘Learning, team work and appropriability:
Managing technological change in the department of social security’, Journal of
Management Studies, 36 (5): 629-652.
Ellinger, A.D. and Bostrum, R.P. (2002) ‘ An Examination of Managers’ Beliefs
about their Roles as Facilitators of Learning ‘. Management Learning, 33 (2): 147179.
Ellinger, A.D. and Bostrum, R.P. (1999) ‘Managerial coaching behaviours in learning
organizations’, Journal of Management Development, 18 (9): 752-71.
Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998) ‘Letting go or holding on-the devolution of
operational personnel activities’, Human Resource Management Journal, 8 (1): 41-55.
Hislop, D. (2002) ‘Managing knowledge and the problem of commitment’.
Conference paper presented at the, Third European Conference on Organisational
knowledge, learning and capabilities, Athens.
Hope-Hailey, V; Gratton, L; Stiles, P; and Zaleska, J. (2002) ‘Paying the piper:
Choice and constraint in changing hr functional roles’, Human Resource Management
Journal, 12 (2): 39-63.
14
Huselid, M. (1999) ‘The impact of human resource practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance’, Academy of Management, 38 (3):
635-72.
Kamoche, K. (1996) ‘Strategic human resource management within a resource –
capability view of the firm’, Journal of Management Studies, 33 (2): 213-233.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The wisdom of teams, Boston, Harvard
Business School press.
Kim, D.H. (1993) ‘The link between individual and group learning’, Sloan
Management Review, fall, 35 (1): 13-22.
Legge, K. (1989) ‘Human resource management: A critical analysis’, in J. Storey
(ed), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, London, Routledge , pp.
19-40.
Lowe, J. (1993) ‘ Manufacturing reform and the changing role of the production
supervisor: The case of the Automobile industry’, 30 (5): 0022-2300.
MacNeil, C.M. (2001) ‘The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work
teams’, Journal of Workplace Learning, 13 (6) 246-53.
McHugh, M. O’ Brien, and Ramondt, J. (1999) ‘Organisational metamorphis lead by
front line staff’, Employee Relations, 21 (16): 556-76.
Mueller, F. and Kamoche, K. (2000) ‘The implications of the appropriability
perspective for human resource management’, Comportamento Organizacional E
Gestao, 16 (2): 227-49.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge Creating Company, 1st edn, New
York, Oxford University Press.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) ‘Core competence’, Harvard Business Review,
May-June: 79-91.
Purcell, J. (1993) ‘The challenge of human resource management for industrial
relations research and practice’ International Journal of Human Resource
Managment. 4 (3): 511-28.
Rogers, C. (1977) Freedom to learn. 1st edn, London, Kogan Page.
Rose, D; Marshall, G; Newby, H; and Vogler, C. ‘Goodbye to Supervisors? ‘ Work,
Employment & Society, 1 (1): 7-24.
Scarbrough, H. (1999) ‘Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the management of
knowledge workers’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11, (1): 5-16.
Scarbrough, H. and Carter, C. (2000) Investigating Knowledge Management. 1st edn,
London, The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Schein, E.H. (1993) ‘How can organisations learn faster? The challenge of entering
the green room’, Sloan Management Review, winter, 85-92.
Schuler, R. and Jackson, S.E. (1987)’ Linking competitive strategies with human
resource management practices’, Academy of Management, 1: 207-19.
Senge, P.M. (1990) ‘The leaders` new work: building-learning organisations’, Sloan
Management Review, autumn, 7-23.
Sobol, M. G. and Lei, D. (1994) ‘Environment, manufacturing technology and
embedded Knowledge’, The International Journal of Human Factors in
Manufacturing. 4 (2): 167-189.
St-Leon, M. (2002) ‘Intellectual capital: Managererial perceptions of organisational
knowledge resources’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3 (2) 149-66.
Storey, J. (1993) ‘The take up of human resource management by mainstream
companies: Key lesson from research’, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management. 4 (3): 29-554.
15
Storey, J. and Quintas, P. (2001) ‘Knowledge Management and HRM’, in J. Storey,
(ed.) Human Resource Management: A critical text. London: Thomson Learning, pp.
339-63
Spender, J. C. (1996) ‘Organisational knowledge, learning and memory: Three
concepts in search of a theory’, Organizational Knowledge, 9 (1): 63-78.
Thompson, J. (1967), 1st edn, Organisations in action. New York, McGraw- Hill.
Van Maurick, J. (1994) ‘Facilitating excellence: Styles and processes of facilitation’,
Learning and Organisational Leadership Journal, 15 (8): 30-34.
Weick, K. (1979) The social psychology of organising 1st edn, Reading, M.A;
Addison-Wesley.
Wooldridge, B. and Floyd, S. (1990) ‘The strategy process, middle management
involvement, and organisational performance’, Strategic Management Journal. 11
(3): 231-41.
Yip, F; Kwong, W; Priem, R.L. and Cycyota, C.S. (2001) ‘The performance effects of
human resource managers and other middle managers involvement in strategy making
under different business level strategies: the case in Hong Kong’, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (8): 1325-1346.
Ulrich, D. (1999) ‘Measuring human resources: An overview of practice and a
prescription for results’, in R.S. Schuler, and S.E. Jackson (eds.), Strategic Human
Resource Management, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 462-82.
Zucchi, F; and Edwards, J.S. (2000) ‘How similar are human resource management
practices in re-engineered organisations?’ Business Process Management Journal, 6
(3): 214-23.
16