Benefits of Different Approaches of Knowledge Sharing

However, the process of sharing knowledge in contemporary organizations is not always simple. Organizations face different obstacles that influence knowledge sharing, thus organizations should play an important role in promoting knowledge sharing strategies. For this purpose I have chosen to examine some of the factors that Ipe (2003) considers in her framework when talking about sharing knowledge among individuals in organization. According to Ipe (2003), one of the factors that could inhibit knowledge sharing is motivation to share. Under this term, she further classifies internal and external factors that can affect knowledge sharing. Internal factors, on the one hand, include power that is attached to the knowledge that one possess, and the reciprocity from sharing (Ipe, 2003, p. 345). External factors, on the other hand, include the relationship between provider and receiver and rewards for sharing the knowledge (Ipe, 2003, p. 346). Employees’ power resides in the expertise they have, according to Ipe (2003). Decision to share/hoard knowledge could depend on the perspective whether this is going to be advantageous for them or not. Thus, some people could decide to hoard their knowledge because of the beliefs that knowledge they posses gives them competitive advantage (Ipe, 2003; Hislop, 2013). In other words, some people believe that if they share knowledge they could be replaced easily thus they are not eager to share with others.

Reciprocity is another internal factor. Hendriks (1999) argues that people’s willingness to share knowledge depends on the expectation that sharing will be mutual. Ipe (2003) explores different aspects of reciprocity and concludes that when people share knowledge with others they expect to get something in return. Otherwise, if the reciprocity in sharing knowledge lack, the future knowledge sharing could be inhibited. People can feel exploited and upset because they did not get, or did get very little in return, thus it could be expected that they would resist sharing knowledge in the future (Ipe, 2003). The relationship between provider and receiver is one of the external factors that can have an effect on knowledge sharing. One aspect that would be considered for this purpose is trust because of the different views on whether it is possible to achieve high level of trust when using electronic document approach of knowledge sharing. For example, Hislop (2013) argues that it is difficult to develop high level of trust when people communicate via electronic means or if the possibilities to collaborate in person are low. However, Robert et al. (2009, cited in Hislop, 2013), states that in the early stages of the community, trust is based on the similar characteristic among people, while over time trust is earned by getting to know the characteristics of the members as well as their competences. Reward systems in organizations should encourage employees to share their knowledge. Caliqiuri (2014) cites numerous scholars who seem to reach consensus saying that rewarding people for knowledge sharing can be important tool to involve workers in knowledge sharing activities. Hansen, Nohria and Tierney (1999) suggests that if company adopts codification strategy the pay and rewards should consider the effort of employees to codify their knowledge, whereas if an organization adopts personalization strategy, payment and rewards should honor the efforts of employees to communicate their tacit knowledge. Other group of authors claims that motivating knowledge sharing could have negative consequences. For example, Milne (2007, cited in Hislop, 2013) claims that if organizations pursue the strategy of rewarding knowledge sharing, individuals might expect those rewards every time otherwise they might not be interested to participate when the rewards are absent.

In addition to the earlier statement that both approaches should be taken into account Haas and Hansen (2007) examined 182 sales teams in consulting company. Their research had an aim to investigate both approaches and their interdependence. They observed three dependent variables: “time saved on task, quality of work and signal of competence” (p. 1143). Their key conclusions are that different types of knowledge and knowledge sharing methods have different benefits. Sharing knowledge through electronic documents saves time but does not improve the quality or signal competence to client. However, sharing knowledge through personal advices increases quality and shows professionalism to clients but it takes more time. To summarize, this essay presented two different approaches of knowledge sharing according to wikiHow (2019); digitally and in person. Sharing knowledge digitally mainly refers to sharing documents and files stored in databases available to employees. It emphasizes the importance of ICT and codification strategy. Sharing knowledge in person refers to strategy of personalization where knowledge is shared among people through face-to-face dialogues, meetings, conferences etc. Both of these approaches have their benefits and setbacks. As it has been seen from the Haas’s and Hansen’s research, sharing knowledge digitally could save time but the quality might lack. In reverse, sharing knowledge in person increases quality of the work but takes time. Furthermore, when sharing knowledge, organizations should be aware of factor that could inhibit the sharing process. Therefore, taking all of this into account it is important take advantages of both approaches and combine them when creating knowledge sharing strategy.