Mystery of the unknown: revisiting tacit knowledge in the organizational literature

Abstract

Purpose -This study aims to discuss how organizational researchers use the concept of tacit knowledge. The concept has become a ''buzzword'' in the last decade and has given rise to an extensive literature. The current study views tacit knowledge as a crucial concept that may help link individual understanding and skills and organizational routines and capabilities, a rare topic of discussion in extant literature.Design/methodology/approach -The paper also addresses some of the misunderstandings in the theoretical and empirical organizational literature on tacit knowledge. Organizational researchers usually refer to Michael Polanyi's conception of the term as tacit knowledge, though they mean Gilbert Ryle's concept of ''knowing-how'' instead.Findings -Accordingly, the primordial nature of tacit knowing is lost in the transition and what is left is a linear dichotomy of tacit and explicit knowledge.Originality/value -This misunderstanding creates an obstacle in the way toward establishing the link between individual skills and organizational routines and capabilities. The paper ends with suggestions offered toward bringing the individual and the organization under the same theoretical explanation of human action.

Influence of Relational Psychological Contract and Affective Commitment in the Intentions of Employee to Share Tacit Knowledge

“…It is rooted in the action and experience of the subject and wrapped in a particular context which makes it difficult to transform to the explicit form [19]. It is difficult to observe and transmit; it is unique, rare and irreplaceable [20]. Meanwhile, Nonaka & Takeuchi (1999) [10], they mention that tacit knowledge is made up cognitive and technical elements.…”

Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review

“…Despite being personal, embedded, contextually-bounded, TK can still be managed using appropriate methods (Johnson, 2007). Again, as in the case of the knowledge hierarchy, some authors still question the consistency of the tacit/explicit dichotomy and their interrelationship (Oguz and Sengün, 2011).The prominent SECI conversion model (Figure 4), formulated by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) based on this dichotomy, proposes that valuable TK resides within individuals and can add value only if converted to EK through one of four conversion modes (Diakoulakis et al, 2004, Mouritsen andLarsen, 2005). Despite having its challengers (Wilson, 2002), this model is widely used in the literature as a foundation for discussing KM.…”

Knowledge and Discourse Matters

“…What is also clear from a review of the KM literature is that while a substantial number of scholars draw on the same source (e.g., Polanyi, 1962) in respect of TK (e.g., Nonaka, 1994;Spender, 1996;Spender and Grant, 1996;Leonard and Sensiper, 2002;Greenwood and Levin, 2005;Duguid, 2005;Gourlay, 2006;Grant and Qureshi, 2006;Grant, 2007;Puusa and Eerikainen, 2010;Virtanen, 2011;Tsoukas;Oguz and Sengun, 2011), there are as manyoften subtly -different interpretations (see section 2.5.3, and The Great Misunderstanding).…”

“…It is not the intention here to add to the existing multifarious interpretations of Polanyi's (e.g., 1962) work, as this would simply repeat what others have already claimed. Suffice to state that this is a contested question (e.g., Virtanen, 2011;Grant and Qureshi, 2006;Oguz and Sengun, 2011). There is one further feature in the tacit debate which has not yet been addressed, and which has direct resonance to the proposal of Discursive Psychology as a means of revealing tacit knowing in discursive action: the implicit formulation.…”