The rhetoric of “knowledge hoarding”: a research-based critique

Abstract

Article accepted for publication in Journal of Knowledge Management, 03/08/17. AbstractPurpose -Via a study of IT service professionals, this article responds to a recent trend towards reifying 'knowledge hoarding' for purposes of quantitative/deductive research. A 'rhetorical theory' lens is applied to reconsider 'knowledge hoarding' as a value-laden rhetoric that directs managers towards addressing assumed worker dysfunctionality.Design/methodology/approach -A qualitative study of practicing IT service professionals (assumed within IT service management 'best practice' to be inclined to hoard knowledge) was conducted over a 34 day period. 20 workers were closely observed processing IT service incidents and 26 workers were interviewed about knowledge sharing practices. Findings -The study found that the character of IT service practice is more one of pro-social collegiality in sharing knowledge/know-how than one of self-interested strategic knowledge concealment. Research limitations/implications -The study concerns a single occupational context. The study indicates that deductive research that reifies 'knowledge hoarding' as a naturallyoccurring phenomenon is flawed, with clear implications for future research.Practical implications -The study suggests that management concern for productivity might be redirected away from addressing assumed knowledge hoarding behaviour and towards encouraging knowledge sharing via social interaction in the workplace. Originality/value -Previous studies have not directly examined the concept of knowledge hoarding using qualitative methods, nor have they considered it as a rhetorical device.

Knowledge withholding in online knowledge spaces: Social deviance behavior and secondary control perspective

“…Table summarizes the previous studies on knowledge withholding, among which knowledge withholding in organizations has received extensive attention but very limited research has been conducted in online settings. Notably, Trusson, Hislop, and Doherty () provided some qualitative evidence demonstrating that people in organizations predominantly perceived prosocial knowledge behavior as their routine practices, because of the unavoidable close connections with other colleagues and co‐workers. However, unlike the organizational contexts, knowledge withholding is more likely to occur in online settings, where connections between people are loose and disjointed.…”

A public goods model of outcomes from online knowledge sharing mediated by mental model processing

“…Finally, a more complete model of online knowledge sharing would of course include motivations and other influences on online knowledge sharing (Author), the relevance of prior knowledge (Grégoire et al (2010), the initial processes of seeking and searching, other intervening processes (such as validation), and other aspects of sharing, both potentially positive, such as re-use, and potentially negative, such as hoarding, hiding, withholding, hostility, ignorance, and disengagement (Chhim et al, 2017;Chiu et al, 2017;Serenko and Bontis, 2016;Trusson et al, 2017). More generally, it would include other distinctions about and measures of online participation, such as the simple dichotomy of active (e.g., posting) vs. passive (e.g., viewing or reading, including lurking) uses, consuming vs. creating, asking vs. answering, general posting vs. directing content to specific others (e.g., threads, replies), and sharing vs. joining online social structures or interacting with others on the site (Malinen, 2015).…”

Development Aspects of Business Embroidery Craft Enni Design in Bukittinggi

“…Organizational innovation can be aimed at improving company performance, by reducing administrative costs or transaction costs, increasing satisfaction in the workplace (for example labor productivity), gaining access to non-tradable assets (for example external knowledge that is not codified) or reducing inventory costs (Trusson, Hislop, and Doherty 2017). The argument related to organizational innovation is access to external knowledge, the choice to divide the costs and risks of an innovation process or there is no innovation, access to skilled workforce in the external environment (Barroso Simao, Gouveia Rodrigues, and Madeira 2016).…”