Constructing Specialized Knowledge Through Activity Coordination During Organizational Change
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/jookc.v2i1.20958Keywords:
organizational knowledge, structurating activity theory, activity coordinationAbstract
Prior research has established that sharing knowledge across interrelated organizational systems is challenging and complex. This is especially the case when organizational change initiatives require changes in how those systems relate to each other. This project was an investigation of knowledge processes between interrelated activity systems in a large facilities management organization as a change initiative was implemented. Interviews with 27 employees representing nine organizational activity systems were the primary source of data, with field notes used to enrich interpretations in this qualitative study. Results were interpreted using constructs from structurating activity theory. Participants communicatively constructed cultures of exclusivity in their activity systems, creating boundaries that made knowledge sharing and activity coordination difficult. The change initiative was aimed at creating a culture of inclusivity, which was undermined by perceptions that the management activity system engaged in more exclusivity-creating practices than other activity systems. Several contradictions were explicated pertaining to inclusivity and exclusivity. Tensions persist in how systems coordinate around and with conflicting objectives and activities. Conclusions offer theoretical contributions of the analysis and suggestions for using results to improve organizational practices.
References
Bélanger, F., and Allport, C. D. (2008). Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework: An exploratory study. Information Systems Journal, 18(1), 101-121.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00252.x
Blackler, F., Crump, N. and McDonald, S. (2000). Organizing processes in complex activity networks. Organization 7, 277-300. doi:10.1177/135050840072005
Boer, N. I., van Baalen, P. J., and Kumar, K. (2002, January). An activity theory approach for studying the situatedness of knowledge sharing. In System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp.1483-1492). IEEE. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2002.994017
Boer, N. I. (2005). Knowledge sharing within organizations: A situated and relational perspective. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus Research Institute of
Management.
Boer, N. I., and Berends, H. (2003, April). The relational dimension of knowledge sharing: An empirical study of an industrial research group. In Proceedings 4th European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Barcelona (pp. 1-14).
Boer, N. I., Berends, H., and van Baalen, P. (2011). Relational models for knowledge sharing behavior. European Management Journal, 29(2), 85-97.
Boogaard, B., and Roggeband, C. (2010). Paradoxes of intersectionality: Theorizing inequality in the Dutch police force through structure and agency. Organization, 17(1), 53-75. doi:10.1177/1350508409350042
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., and Swan, J. (2005). Implementing change in construction project organizations: Exploring the interplay between structure and agency. Building Research and Information, 33(6), 547-560. doi:10.1080/09613210500288837
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198-213. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
Cabrera, E. F., and Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720-735. doi:10.1080/09585190500083020
Canary, H. E. (2010a). Constructing policy knowledge: Contradictions, communication, and knowledge frames. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 181-206.
doi:10.1080/03637751003758185
Canary, H. E. (2010b). Structurating activity theory: An integrative approach to policy knowledge. Communication Theory, 20(1), 21-49. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01354.x
Canary, H. E., and McPhee, R. D. (2009). The mediation of policy knowledge: An interpretive analysis of intersecting activity systems. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 147-187. doi:10.1177/0893318909341409
Canary, H. E., and McPhee, R. D. (Eds.). (2011). Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice. New NY: Routledge.
Choo, C. W. (1996). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. International journal of Information Management, 16(5), 329-340.
doi:10.1016/0268-4012(96)00020-5
Coopey, J., Keegan, O., and Emler, N. (1998). Managers' innovations and the structuration of organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 263-284.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00093
De, R., and Ratan, A. L. (2009). Whose gain is it anyway? Structurational perspectives on deploying ICTs for development in India's microfinance sector. Information
Technology for Development, 15(4), 259-282.
Delong, D. W., and Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.
doi:10.5465/AME.2000.3979820
Duguid, P. (2005). “The art of knowing”: Social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community of practice. The Information Society, 21(2), 109-118.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Communication, discourse and activity. Communication Review (The), 3(1-2), 165-185.
Fairhurst, G. T., and Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7-35. Retrieved from doi:10.1177/1742715013509396
Fairhurst, G. T., and Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14(1), 5-26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00301.x
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1989) Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hargadon, A., and Fanelli, A. (2002). Action and possibility: Reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 13(3), 290- 302. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.290.2772
Haslett, B. B. (2013). Structurational interaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 615-622. doi:10.1177/0893318913504037
Heller, M. (2007). Distributed knowledge, distributed power: A sociolinguistics of structuration. Text and Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse
Communication Studies, 27(5-6), 633-653. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2007.029
Higgins, C. D. (2010). Facility management reorganizations: Drivers for change in management of facility functions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70, 5135.
Hussain, Z. I., and Cornelius, N. (2009). The use of domination and legitimation in information systems implementation. Information Systems Journal, 19(2), 197- 224.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 621-650. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.33664922
Kastberg, P. (2014). Organizational knowledge communication – A nascent 3rd order disciplinarity. Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication, 1(1), 83-97. http://www.jookc.com/article/view/19444
Kuhn, T. (2012). Negotiating the micro-macro divide thought leadership from organizational communication for theorizing organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 543-584. doi:10.1177/0893318912462004
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Löw, M. (2008). The constitution of space: The structuration of spaces through the simultaneity of effect and perception. European Journal of Social Theory, 11(1),
-49. doi:10.1177/1368431007085286
McPhee, R. D., and Zaug, P. (2000). Organizational theory, organizational communication, organizational knowledge, and problematic integration. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 574-591. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02897.x
McWilliam, C. L., Kothari, A., Kloseck, M., Ward-Griffin, C., and Forbes, D. (2008). Organizational learning for evidence-based practice: A ‘PAKT’ for success. Journal of Change Management, 8(3-4), 233-247.
Ortlieb, R., and Sieben, B. (2014). The making of inclusion as structuration: Empirical evidence of a multinational company. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(3), 235-248.
Roper, K., Kim, J., and Lee, S. (2009). Strategic facility planning: A white paper. International Facility Management Association, 1-20.
Ropes, D. (2009). Communities of practice: Powerful environments for interorganizational knowledge alliances?. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital (p. 400).
Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., and Taylor, J. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285-316. doi:10.1177/0893318914527000
Scott, C., and Myers, K. (2010). Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure. Communication Theory, 20(1), 79-105. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01355.x
Sveiby, K. E., and Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420-433.
Tracy, S. J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wasko, M., and Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what one does”: Why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2), 155-173.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. doi:10.1515/9783038212843.216
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
Zorn, T., Christensen, L.T., and Cheney, G. (1999) Do we really want constant change? San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
§1. Object of the agreement and rights
The author guarantees that she/he has the copyright to the work and that this specific publishing does not offend other persons’, organizations’ or companies’ copyright.
- 1.1. The author gives the Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication a non-exclusive right to publish the work in the electronic version of the non-commercial journal The Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication. This journal is an open access journal and will be available for free on the internet and as thus available for all internet users worldwide. The work will be published in English.
- 1.2. The journal is published under a Creative Commons license Attribution Non-commercial No derivatives (cc by-nc-sa) http://creativecommons.org/about/license/. This license allows others to download your work and share it with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change it in any way or use it commercially.
- 1.3. The author is the copyright holder and the author agrees to the above mentioned Creative Commons license.
- 1.4. The Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication is not entitled to transfer the obtained right in this agreement to a third party.
§2. Publishing on the Internet
The Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication is under an obligation to publish the work within a reasonable time span and within the first year after the manuscript has been accepted for publication. The Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication is entitled to use the work or parts of the work for marketing purposes.
§3. Proofreading
The Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication is edited, peer reviewed and proofread by the editors and the international peer review board in collaboration with the author.
§4. Availability on the Internet
The article will be published on the Internet at www.jookc.com.
