Towards a Network Exchange Perspective

1
Towards a Network Exchange Perspective for
Knowledge Sharing Systems
Liaquat Hossain
2
Presentation Outline
Problems addressed in this study
Organization, structure and communications network
Network exchange perspective of knowledge sharing
The Ying and Yang of organizational design
Flow of power structures within organization
3
A Sociotechnical View of Knowledge Sharing
organizational objectives are best met not by
the optimization of the technical system and the
adaptation of the social system to it, but by the
joint optimization of the technical and social
aspects
Cherns, 1978
4
Problems addressed in this study

1. Design and management of legitimate (i.e.,
formal) and shadow network (i.e., informal and
tacit) for KS
2. The mechanics of exchange, conflict, and
coercive relations for KS
3. The mechanical (i.e., quantitative and
theoretical) and organic (i.e., qualitative and
subjective) components for KS in organizations.
5
Organization, structure and communications network

• Organization can be defined as a person or a
  group of people united for some purpose (Cyert
  and March,1963).
• Ethical codes and market system itself can be
  interpreted as organizations (Arrow, 1974).
• Organization structure is seen as a mechanism for
  
• guiding communication flows among
  individuals.
• Regular patterns of communication contacts among
  people within a social system can be referred to
  as communications network (Wigand, 1988)

6
Communication Flow through OS

• Strengths of weak ties suggests that casual
  acquaintances promotes organizational learning
  (Granovetter, 1973).
• Information exchange, patterns, coalition and
  power of individual members can be drawn by
  communication network analysis (Wigand, 1988
  Bonacich and Bienenstock, 2000).
• Types of interactions, or links, among agents
  where legitimate network refers to formal and
  shadow network refers to informal structure can
  serve as a differentiation between formal and
  informal OS (Stacey, 1996).

7
Legitimate vs. Shadow Network Structure

• In the legitimate network, interactions or links
  are either
• (i) formally and intentionally established by the
  powerful members of the organization, or
• (ii) established well-understood, implicit
  guiding principles, which are accepted by the
  members of the organization.
• Shadow network consists of links that are
  spontaneously and informally established by the
  individuals among themselves during the
  interaction process in the legitimate system
  (Stacey, 1996).
• Network exchange perspective advanced by
  Markovsky, Willer and Patton (1988) provides a
  basis for exploring the differences in resource
  accumulations of positions in interconnected
  groups of actors.

8
Network exchange perspective of knowledge sharing

• Elementary theory is used to explore exchange,
  conflict, and coercive relations for agents
  (Willer and Anderson, 1981 Willer, 1987).
• ET is a modeling procedure that can be used to
  build models of properties inside the actor, and
  for properties outside the actor (Willer, 1999).
• For example, preferences and beliefs are
  considered as properties inside the actor and
  social relations and social structures are viewed
  as properties outside the actor (i.e. the inside
  and outside actor, may provide significant
  insights about KS practices in organizations).

 
9
Elementary theory or ET for Knowledge Sharing

• The concept of power exercise is central to ET.
• Power exercise is the movement of valued
  resources among agents, the control of one agent
  by another, or both (Willer, 1999).
• For example, when people interact, two kinds of
  events indicate that power is being exercised.
• First, A is exercising power over B when A
  benefits more than B
• Second, A is exercising power over B when A
  controls B more than the contrary.
• Three types of networks are examined within the
  ET literatureequal power, strong power, and weak
  power

10
Equal Power Network

• An equal power network represents a state of no
  exclusion, or a network of agents that face an
  equal probability of exclusion.
• B A
• 
  D
• C A
• 
  B

11
Strong Power Network

• It consists of one or more agents who are never
  excluded from an exchange and one or more agents
  who are potentially always excluded from an
  exchange.
• two examples of strong networks where the
  probability of an A-exchange is 100 and the
  probability for a B, C, or D-exclusion is 100.
• B A C
  A D
• D
• C A
• B

12
Weak Power Network

• Exists between the two extremes of equal and
  strong power
• For example, no single agent is necessarily any
  more powerful than any other agent in the network
  as all the agents have anunequalprobability of
  exclusion
• D
  D
• C A C
  A
• B
  B
• Strong power Weak
  power

13
The Ying and Yang of Organizational Design

• Legitimate networks are often designed by
  organization heads and/or influenced over time by
  established behaviors and culture (Stacey, 1996).
  
• KM literature suggests the direct relationship
  between legitimate structure and knowledge
  legitimation (Gumport and Snydman, 2002).
• Dynamics of knowledge legitimation suggest that
  knowledge has social origins (Manheim, 1936
  Kuhn, 1962 and Mulkay, 1979).
• Legitimate network is the skeleton, where shadow
  structure is the central nervous system which,
  drives the collective thought processes, actions,
  and reactions (Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993).
• Successful OD depends on the capacity to design
  and support legitimate networks that maximize the
  potential for spontaneous development of shadow
  networks.

14
Flow of Power Structures within Organization

• A study of shadow networks and CoPs across 50
  firms suggest that social network analyses aimed
  at identifying shadow networks is a legitimate
  management tool for understanding the flow of
  power (Cross and Prusak, 2002).
• Construction of sociograms help in identifying
  leaders and isolated agents for uncovering
  asymmetry and reciprocity, and also to map chains
  of connection (Moreno, 1934).
• The value of ET is in its simple, clear, and
  experimentally validated assumptions about
  resources, structure, or both.
• Hypotheses based on the assumed resources of
  specific agents within a network combined with
  their placement within equal, weak, or strong
  networks can be used as a tool for building and
  testing theory.

15
Managing Knowledge Sharing

• Attention to the following three core components
  would be required for managing KS in
  organizations
• structure effects
• How is the structure of this network affecting
  outcome?
• Who are the power players within the network?
• Who is being excluded? Why? Should I
  intervene?
• resource effects
• Which skills and resources are valued the most
  by the organization?
• Which skills and resources are valued the most
  by said employees?
• Can these skills be better leveraged through
  subtle manipulation of network channels? That
  is, can I lower the probability of exclusion of
  this knowledge by helping to motivate a
  previously blocked or nonexistent line of
  communication?

16
References
Arrow, K. (1974). The Limits of Organization,
Norton and Company, New York. Bonacich, P., and
Bienenstock, E. J. (2000). Patterns of
coalitions in exchange networks an experimental
study, Rationality and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp. 352-373. Cherns, A. (1978). The principles
of sociotechnical design, In Pasmore, W. A., and
J. J. Sherwood (eds.), Sociotechnical Systems A
Sourcebook.. La Jolla, California University
Associates Incorporated, pp. 61-71. Cross, R.,
and Prusak, L. (2002). The people who make
organizations goor stop, Harvard Business
Review, June, Vol. 80, pp. 104-112. Cyert, R. M.,
and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of
the Firm, N.J., U.S.A. Prentice-Hall Inc.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak
Ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, pp.
1360-1380. Gumport, P. J., and Snydman, S. K.
(2202). The formal organization of knowledge,
The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No. 3,
pp. 375-408 (Columbus, Ohio). Krackhardt, D. and
Hanson, J. R. (1997). Informal networks The
company, In Knowledge in Organizations, Prusak,
L (Edited), pp. 37-49. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The
structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago
University of Chicago Press.
17
References
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia An
introduction to the sociology of knowledge,
Transl. Louis Wirth Edward Shils. New York
Harcourt Brace World. Markovsky, B., Willer,
D., and Patton, T. (1988). Power Relations in
Exchange Networks, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 53, pp. 220-36. Moreno, J. (1934). Who shall
survive? New York Beacon Press. Mulkay, M.
(1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge,
London George Allen Unwin. Stacey, R. D.
(1996). Complexity and Creativity in
Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco. Wigand, R. T. (1988). Communication
Network Analysis History and Overview, In
Handbook of Organizational Communication, G.
Goldhaber and G. Barnett (Eds.), Ablex Publishing
Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey,
319-359. Willer, D. (1987). Theory and the
experimental investigation of social structures,
New York Gordon and Breach. Willer, D., and
Anderson, B. (1981). Network Exchange, and
Connection, New York Elsevier. Willer, D.
(1999). Network Exchange Theory (Edited),
Westport, Cr Praeger