|
COPYRIGHT 2005 Western States Communications Association
It's hard to measure intellectual output.... In a factory you can
count how many widgets go by in an hour, and you can put a screw on every one, or whatever. It's a very different world with this intellectual stuff. And I haven't seen any company amaze me with the way they chart it because it's tough. (Employee, personal communication, October 29, 2001)
Organizational participants cope with ambiguity in organizational life in various ways (Eisenberg, 1984; Weick, 1995). The rise of knowledge-driven workplaces has prompted some scholars to turn their attention to the ambiguities, difficulties, and opportunities often associated with expert knowledge in the workplace (Alvesson, 1993; Drucker, 1994; Irons, 1998; Kinsella, 1999). Starbuck (1992) views 'expert' knowledge as 'esoteric' knowledge that is often acquired in part through 'formal education' as opposed to more common forms of widely shared knowledge (p. 717). Similarly, Blackler (1995) referred to this type of specialized knowledge as either 'embrained' or 'embodied' knowledge (pp. 1023-1024), often used by employees in organizations such as high-tech, consulting, law, and engineering firms, among others. Ordinary organizational members, popular press authors (e.g., Stewart, 1997), and some scholars (e.g., Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) often refer to members' knowledge unproblematically as 'intellectual capital.' 'Knowledge' and 'expertise,' however, are contested terms. Further, the perceived value of participants' expert knowledge or 'intellectual capital' is not automatic and requires the production and reproduction of favored organizational interpretations.
Although previous studies have shown that the ambiguity of knowledge-heavy organizations makes them susceptible to discursive struggles over meaning (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001), fewer scholars have explored the particular ways those struggles unfold (e.g., Deetz, 1997). Further, Mumby's (1997) argument for less dichotomous treatments of power struggles is particularly relevant for knowledge-heavy environments given the discursive complexities of such workplaces. A more finely tuned conceptual vocabulary would help scholars explain the nature of struggles involving knowledge in organizations and would allow practitioners to address these potentially obstructive practices. Thus, this study analyzes how members' expert knowledge comes to be recognized as valuable in a knowledge-intensive organization. [1] I argue that participants in the following case employed a variety of communicative practices that influenced the perceived value of their own expertise and often did so at the organization's expense.
Knowledge and Intellectual Capital
To explore these issues, the article proceeds as follows. First, I review three perspectives on knowledge and expertise in organizational settings. Second, I analyze a case that brings particular issues about struggles over expertise into sharper focus. Lastly, I draw implications from the case.
Knowledge as a Resource
In its most objectified form, knowledge is viewed as a strategic organizational resource (Lowendahl, Revang, & Fosstenlokken, 2001). According to Empson (2001a), the resource perspective takes a largely 'functional' view of knowledge and 'identifie[s] knowledge as the primary source of sustainable competitive advantage' (p. 812). Like material assets, the resource perspective conceptualizes knowledge as a relatively tangible possession that can be transferred, received, and used like other resources between and among members (Grant, 1996). The organization functions as a hub that facilitates the exchange of members' individual knowledge. Management and control of knowledge typically involve normative efforts to technologically 'capture' members' explicit knowledge (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001), measure and manage knowledge (Bohn, 1994), assert property ownership rights through copyright agreements (Morris, 2001), and diffuse and 'share' knowledge through 'communities' and networks (Storck & Hill, 2000; Swan, Newell, Scarbrough & Hislop, 1999).
Knowledge as a Process
In contrast, the process perspective emphasizes the creation of knowledge as an ongoing, collaborative, and inherently communicative process (Empson, 2001b; Heaton & Taylor, 2002; Nonaka, 1991). Empson (2001a) argued that the process perspective is more 'interpretive' in nature and views knowledge as an ongoing 'social construct' (p. 813). Blackler (1995), for instance, used activity theory to emphasize the way knowledge construction and reproduction occurs during participants' interactions. Liedtka, Haskins, Rosenblum, and Weber (1997) agreed and argued, 'shared problem solving leads to greater creativity.... [and] innovation is possible only by bringing together diverse experts who can educate each other' (p. 54). Employees are viewed as co-creators and innovators of new organizational knowledge that they develop through collaboration. Morris (2001) stated that 'these [interactional] improvisations, using more personal know-how, may be highly context-specific but they potentially form the basis of valuable new knowledge for the firm' (p. 821). Knowledge collaboration is often accomplished through teams or work groups that function as what some call 'communities of practice' (Heaton & Taylor, 2002, p. 214; Liedtka et. al, 1997, p. 56).
Knowledge as a Struggle over Meaning
The critical perspective approaches knowledge as a struggle over meaning (Deetz, 1982). Alvesson (1993) argued, for instance, that 'knowledge does not exist in a vacuum,' and the ambiguity inherent in knowledge-intensive organizations amplifies their susceptibility to participants' rhetorical skills in comparison to other types of organizations (p. 1008). For example, Kinsella (1999) found that the acceptance of seemingly objective, quantified 'scientific' knowledge and the legitimacy of experts' claims were clearly contested, particularly among the expert peers themselves. From the critical view, organizational struggles take place as members consent to or resist dominant meanings that have consequences for all parties involved. According to Knights, Murray, and Willmott (1993), these struggles manifest as 'actors strive to secure/advance their position, materially as well as symbolically' (p. 988). When studying a merger, for example, Empson (2001b) argued, 'Professionals therefore risk diminishing the perceived value of their service offering if they allow their image to be called into question by association with apparently "downmarket" colleagues' (p. 856). In another example, Deetz (1997) showed how employees may gain seemingly important benefits such as feelings of higher status or acquire prestigious professional identities by consenting to managers' suggested meaning of their work. Critical studies have demonstrated the systematically distorted processes that can produce and reproduce dominant meanings that clearly benefit some parties more than others (Deetz, 1992; Hochschild, 1997; Kunda, 1992).
As Mumby (1997) indicated, however, many critical studies tend to dichotomize dominant and resistant meanings in ways that favor one side or the other. By doing so, we may overlook the otherwise 'complex interplay between power and resistance' (p. 344). He wrote, 'It is precisely in the struggle between various groups over interpretive possibilities and what gets to count as meaningful that the hegemonic dialectic of power and resistance gets played out' (p. 346). Mumby argued for a closer examination of the way power relations are 'manifested in everyday communication practices' to develop 'a more nuanced way to understand' these interpretive struggles (p. 352). The present study pursues this goal.
Intellectual capital as symbolic capital
To enrich previous research (Alvesson, 1993, 2001; Alvesson & Karreman, 2001; Deetz, 1997; Mumby, 1997) this case explores the particular communication practices enacted by individual participants and groups that shape the perceived value of their expertise in personally favorable ways. Bourdieu's (1977, 1984, 1986, 1991) concept of symbolic capital is most helpful in this regard.
Symbolic capital is any property (any form of capital whether physical, economic, cultural or social) when it is perceived by social agents endowed with categories of perception which cause them to know it and to recognize it, to give it value. (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 47)
Said more plainly, features of social life function as symbolic capital insofar as people in a given community recognize them as valuable. Our everyday schemas, 'systems of classification,' and existing social order guide our evaluations of what we believe has worth (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 85). From this view, particular possessions, the 'right' relationships, and certain cultural features only earn individuals and groups honor, reputation, and prestige to the degree that community members are socialized to view them as valuable. Thus, Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) argued that various possessions and attributes function as symbolic capital when they are 'grasped through categories of perception that recognize its specific logic or, if you prefer, misrecognize the arbitrariness of its possession and accumulation' (p. 119). Thus, Bourdieu described symbolic capital in terms of 'misrecognition' to emphasize the taken-for-granted orientation that members take toward what Bourdieu views as clearly social processes.
A central theme in Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984) was that every difference represents a symbolic gap that stratifies people and groups and reinforces unequal relational properties that structure social spaces. Our position in society is shaped by how much and what kinds of recognized 'capital' we possess. The issue for Bourdieu was that particular people who occupy influential positions--whether deliberately or not--can guide the rules of the game unduly in personally favorable ways. He wrote:
What creates the power of words and slogans [as symbolic capital], a power capable of maintaining or subverting the social order, is the belief in...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
