Towards a Socio-Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Transfer - Essay Example

Towards a Socio-Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Transfer The area of knowledge transfer has become an increasingly important area of study over the past several decades, and of critical importance in the area of business and corporate culture. Ringberg and Reihlen attempt to address some of the shortfalls of the past research in their study in the area of knowledge transfer as well as offer some viable solutions to these inadequacies in the current state of affairs. Their paper first attempts to discuss the present issues regarding knowledge transfer in the areas of positivist and social constructionist positions, which they claim as the general common ground. They then introduce what they term a socio-cognitive model, which the authors believe eliminates the pitfalls of the prior two concepts. In reviewing the field of knowledge transfer they point out that the positivist concept infers that the knowledge itself is within the text or other medium of transport and that the only issue is the successful decoding of that knowledge to ‘intelligible and univocal knowledge transfer.’ (Ringberg and Reihlen2008: 913). The belief here is that knowledge is a fixed quantity not open to interpretation and that, ‘knowledge-sharing practices depend on knowledge assets, the richness of communication channels, and the absorptive capacity of the receiving units.’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 913) In regards to the social constructionist theory, ‘knowledge is socially produced and defined through its social usage; words take on meaning within the context of ongoing practices and relationships’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 913). The authors state that the miscommunication errors in the positivist approach are believed to arise from a lack of absorptive capacity of the receiving units (employees) rather than misinterpretations resulting from more idiosyncratic issues. The authors interpret the social constructionist concept as being, ‘the black box within which knowledge is embedded, stored, and transferred.’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 916). This also ignores many reflective components that the authors believe to be much of the missing components of knowledge transfer. For instance they believe that, ‘there is an important difference between knowing how to do something and knowing why something is done.’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 917). And that while practice is important to imbedding knowledge transfer this theory ignores the necessary synchronization of the tremendous amount of knowledge that both the sender and receiver must have in common in order that the message can be conveyed as accurately as possible in order to absorb the meaning of the practice. The disembodied notion of knowledge in positivism and social constructionism is increasingly being questioned (e.g. Cobb, 2000; DeGrandpre, 2000; Garud and Rappa, 1994; Ginsberg, 1994; Reich, 2000; Sutter, 1999; Tryphon and Vonèche, 1996). DeGrandpre (2000), for example, argues that it is when a person experiences the consequences of his or her actions in an ecological context that the possibility of new meaning arises. That is, the relation of the cognizing mind and culture is considered mutually complementary and coevolving, because the development of either part depends not only on the other but also is made possible through the productive existence of the other (see also Heinrich, 2004; Vogel, 2000). (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 919) Ringberg and Reihlen purport that their socio-cognitive model corrects these problems and incorporates other details that enhance the uptake of knowledge transfer. They believe that these earlier theories view knowledge as a pure and disembodied conception that is not applicable to the real world use of information and perception. The authors state that, ‘…when a person experiences the consequences of his or her actions in an ecological context that the possibility of new meaning arises. (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 919) While the authors seem to site some sources for ecological information they seem to neglect one of the most influential and meaningful sources of ecological theory. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory clearly explains the connection and relationship among living things and the environment they experience. He states that personality, change and knowledge transfer are proximally interrelated processes, ‘These are reciprocal interactions between an active, evolving, bio psychological human organism and the persons, object, and symbols in its immediate external environment’ (Broderick & Blewitt, 2006, p. 14). His model illustrates (see Figure 1) how social influences impacts human survival and one’s ability to thrive and evolve. Human development and the transfer of knowledge are social and inseparable from the environmental contexts in which a being develops. Bronfenbrenner’s study illustrates how the five levels of environmental influence (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem macrosystem and chronosystem ) impacts the full range of human development including mentally, psychologically, emotionally as well as socially. Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model Although this would have been more of an interdisciplinary reach for the authors, one can clearly see how the intersecting of the individuals spheres with that of the knowledge transfer are necessary in order to take into account the many ecological factors involved that Ringberg and Reihlen purport to be the greatest influence on successful or unsuccessful knowledge transfer, ‘The socio-cognitive approach moves researchers away from a disembodied and deterministic understanding of influenced but not determined sense making by emphasizing that knowledge transfer relies on individually embodied processes by environmental feedback’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 921) Their own figure illustrates this point well: Figure 2: Cognitive outcomes in knowledge transfer Here they show the innovative difference in comparing private or individual Models with Cultural or more social models of influence. ‘In contrast, we suggest that the interaction between reflective/categorical thinking and level of environmental feedback (e.g. from social interaction, practice, media, literature) makes knowledge transfer a much more complex phenomenon.’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 922-3) While similar to Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model this concept further elucidates the interaction not only between cultural influences but individual idiosyncrasies, wherever they may have derived from. It also incorporates the concept of reflective thinking as an important part of the knowledge transfer processes whereas prior theories only take into account categorical thinking. The authors believe that their socio-cognitive approach helps researchers to account for a wider range of interactive and fluid scenarios that earlier research paid no attention to. They categorize these knowledge transfer outcomes into four components: negotiated, collective, unique, and stereotypical knowledge. They conclude that, ‘The socio-cognitive model provides a more comprehensive and systemic understanding of the roles of cognitive factors and environmental feedback mechanisms.’ (Ringberg and Reihlen 2008: 928) While the authors did a great deal of research on their topic, much of it was quite older than one would have liked to have seen for a study of this importance. Certainly all their cites were relevant to their topic but tended to point out the negative issues they were trying to correct and while they did cite other studies that had some relevance to theirs, there were also six years old or greater. For instance, more current studies bring up issues not addressed in the article under review here. Watson and Hewett (2006) bring up the issue that knowledge transfer also may be dependent upon two key factors: ‘(1) the willingness of individuals to contribute their knowledge to the system; and (2) the rate at which individuals access and reuse knowledge within the system.’ (147) Watson and Hewett also concentrate on social exchange theory which the authors use quite extensively and support their conclusions that this will have a great deal of impact on knowledge transfer. Watson and Hewett also cite expectancy theory as another important component for successful knowledge transfer. This is generally discussed but not specifically alluded to in their four components of Knowledge transfer. Szulanski & Jensen (2006) also state: The first, more traditional approach, following institutional, motivational, and pragmatic efficiency considerations, presumes that a modified practice can be fine-tuned, stabilized, and institutionalized without consulting a working example and that practices should thus be adapted as quickly as possible to create fit with the local environment. The second approach argues, instead, for the need to maintain the diagnostic value of the original practice by adapting cautiously and gradually. (Szulanski & Jensen 2006: 937) These authors also point out that presumptive adaptation or practice that uses predefined but theoretical instructions stalls knowledge transfer growth while a more conservative approach to adaptation, which basically entails close adherence to the original practice, results in remarkably rapid network growth. This idea is not present in the article under review. Subsequent studies have also reviewed Inter- and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer (Van Wijk et. al 2008), studying how organizations as a whole can learn from one another as well as pointing out the competitive advantage of more successful knowledge transfer (Easterby-Smith et al 2008) both of which are not discussed in this report. The methodology of the report is more of a literature review with suppositions regarding the findings of others, which in itself is often an important critique of existing knowledge and issues over the past two decades. However, this study is lacking any quantifiable results from any practical implications and therefore falls short in the validity of the authors theories regarding the actual implications they are setting forth in their hypothesis. On the whole it certainly gives way to future study and practical research in the field of knowledge transfer and development or more successful procedures. List of References Broderick, P. C., & Blewitt, P. 2006. The life span: Human development for helping professionals (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Easterby-Smith, Mark, Lyles, Marjorie A., Tsang, Eric W. K. 2008, “Inter-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: Current Themes and Future Prospects.” Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 667-690 Ringberg, T. & Reihlen, M. 2008, ‘Towards a Socio-Cognitive Approach to Knowledge Transfer.’ Journal of Management Studies. Vol 45, No 5, pp. 912-935. Szulanski, G. & Jensen, R. 2006, “ Presumptive adaptation and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer.” Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 937-957 Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J., & Lyles, Marjorie. 2008, “Inter- and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Management Studies, Vol 45, No. 4, pp. 830-853 Watson, S., & Hewett, K. 2006, “A Multi-Theoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse.” Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 43, No.2 pp. 141–173. Read More