According to the above analysis, it seems that the common value in the organization is so crucial that members in the environment are affected by it. The common value trig-gers individuals’ learning and also direct orientations of learning. However, why can the common value work? It seems to be something to do with the responses derived from in-teractions.
Each group has its own background, which leads to addressing the specific power of a group dynamic. For instance, the common value in Mr. J’s group is distinguished. It provides members with clear criteria by which people in the group are able to identify their positions so as to adjust themselves to the group identity (Mr. L, Mr. K & Mr. R).
Both Mr. L and Mr. R agreed that the criteria of evaluation were clear and members in the organization also knew how to achieve it. Mr. K suggested that in order to gain a good appraisal, individuals in the organization needed to keep disciplining themselves all the time to fit the criteria. On the other hand, the focus of Mr. W’s case is on members’ par-ticipation. Ms. Q suggested that it was the desire to keep up that encouraged her to keep moving, while Ms. O did not allow herself to fall behind the team. This seems to echo what Mr. N referred to as “You might be behind one or two persons in the group, yet you could not fall behind your team”. It seems to us that both the common value in Mr. J’s group and the tradition in Mr. W’s case share a similar function through which members’
actions in the both organizations are passively motivated. Because the tradition and the common value directed members’ actions in the organization, the individual couldn’t help adopting accepted ways to deal with things in order to fit organizational criteria and to survive in the organization. For the purpose of not being treated as an outsider, the indi-vidual tried to merge him or herself into the environment and not to fall behind the team.
In other words, it was the desire to be accepted which triggered members’ learning. In the fields of communities of practice and social networks, scholars such as Wenger (1998), Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) also discuss the individual’s identification within a com-munity network. People who have a desire to become members of the group will try their best to fit the group’s criteria which derived from common values or particular traditions.
The process of gaining group acceptance means a lot in terms of constructing a knowl-edge community. Not only may people learn professional knowlknowl-edge through the process, but they can also know themselves more by way of identifying the differences between themselves and others.
The idea of not falling behind the team implies that people in the environment make comparisons with others. The gap between members’ actual performance and that
ex-pected of them triggers possibilities of learning. In some cases of this study, the reason for people making efforts to learn is not that they would like to achieve a higher position but that they want to keep themselves progressing to avoid being behind. According to Abrams and Hogg (1999: 253), “people have a fundamental need to feel certain about their world and their place within it – subjective certainty renders existence meaningful and thus gives one confidence about how to behave, and what to expect from the physical and social environment within which one finds oneself”. In order to have control over their work, members in the groups make comparisons to check their cognition against physical and social reality to reduce uncertainty. In Mr. J’s organization, people make comparisons between their actual performance and the established criteria, while people in Mr. W’s team compare themselves with other colleagues. People strive for the cer-tainty that is subjectively important to understand their positions in the organization by way of making comparisons (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990).
In order to cope with the stress derived from uncertainty, individuals try their best to perform as well as other members do. On one hand, they compare themselves with others so that particular learning actions are consciously or unconsciously triggered. On the other hand, during the process of resolving uncertainties individuals make comparisons between the new information and their established knowledge and try to integrate the new insights into their original knowledge structure. Pursuing group acceptance and making comparisons contribute to each other. In order to be recognized by the group, individuals identify differences between themselves and other members. Through making compari-sons, people can then identify their positions in the organization. These mutual interac-tions do not necessarily close the gaps between the “self” and the acceptable “self”, but make people understand more about themselves and their views of the world.
In order to be accepted by the common value or the tradition, the concept of inter-personal network is also crucial. Not only may individuals adopt interinter-personal networks to explore the “tradition”, the “common value” and particular criteria, but they also use the networks to gain resources including help, know-how and advice. Some scholars, such as Obstfeld (2002), Parker, Cross and Walsh (2001), believe that networking inter-personal relationships may create possibilities for the emergence of a ‘virtuous cycle’ of knowing. Obstfeld (2002) points out that interpersonal networks help individuals to ob-tain know-how quickly. Ms. R suggests that the fastest way to learn things is to ask ex-perienced colleagues. “It is very important if you can always keep in touch with col-leagues, for they may help you a lot when you need help” (Ms. R). When tasks are as-signed, members gain chances to communicate with others. The more frequent the
com-munications are, the more strengthened the common value in the organization may be-come. Ms. O said, “Ms. P was the person whom I always asked, when I needed help. I could usually get the answer from her. I hope that I can also help her in return one day”.
Through networking the interpersonal relations, the tradition (or the common value) of helping others seems to be strengthened and even more imbedded than before. The inter-personal network also helps individuals to gain know-how quickly. In Mr. J’s organiza-tion, he actually used interpersonal networks and marketing skills to sell his ideas. For example, Mr. J made a “Hero” to promote his ideas by way of interpersonal networks.
Because the “Hero” had a good relationship with other colleagues, everything that hap-pened to him was so visible that stories about the hero could be disseminated success-fully. It is the strong interpersonal networks which make particular ideas pass quickly, so that the common value and the tradition can also be strengthened.
It seems to me that not only can information be disseminated fast through interper-sonal networks, but also the interactions derived from the process of establishing the common value also strengthen interpersonal networks. It is these interpersonal networks that bring different knowledge domains together to create new understandings. It is also the process of networking that strengthens the common value to keep varied interactions developing.
Social exchange is generally regarded as one of the motivations by which interper-sonal networks and relations are established, and this is also a theory that may be applied to interpret most social interactions. On one hand, a community of practice allows mem-bers to exchange their advice, help or knowledge, so that memmem-bers can acquire solutions to sort out specific problems (Ardichvili, Page & Wentling, 2003: 65). On the other hand, varied exchanges that are regulated by common values provide members and the organi-zation with abundant resources so that learning and knowing in the organiorgani-zation are de-veloped (Araujo, 1998). In Mr. J’s organization, Mr. M. lent a hand to his colleagues, be-cause he expected to gain some help in the future. Mr. K. and Mr. L. helped each other because they share similar suffering under Mr. J’s strict control. Under this sort of con-trol, employees’ performance was effective, but the atmosphere of helping others seemed to be based on exchange. However, it is not always true that people will bring their per-sonal motivation of exchange to interacting with others. Unlike the atmosphere in Mr. J’s group, most employees in Mr. W’s group were, according to Mr. W, Mr. N and Ms. O, affected by the tradition and were used to helping their colleagues. It seems that there is strong power which encourages the individual to give to and receive from his or her peers’ contributions. Dixon (1997) and Drucker (1999) highlight the importance of the
circumstances favorable to knowledge-exchanging and suggest that it may be necessary to merge routines and cultural norms into current organizational tasks to strengthen the binding glue of knowledge sharing. Engaging in exchanges, not only may individuals identify the gaps within their own knowledge, other colleagues’ resources, and organiza-tional common values, but also they strengthen interpersonal networks.
These interactions enable us to trace the reasons why people’s learning is triggered, continuing or is stopped. Within the circumstances, people deliberately or unconsciously try new things, participate in activities or advance particular opinions and values, in order to gain group acceptance or engage in exchanges. Based on these interactions, an organ-izational culture and value system is gradually constructed and modified. Being accepted by the group and engaging in exchanges with others become stepping stones by which in-dividuals in organizations are motivated to join group activities. Common values in an organization provide members with criteria to compare themselves with others, so that people may reflect on their established knowledge when they try to merge their individual system into the common values. During the process of gaining group acceptance, indi-viduals interact with their colleagues and the environment so that their formal and infor-mal networks are gradually established. Dealing with networks, people share their in-sights with each other. In some cases, this sort of exchange also explains how knowledge develops in a group.
Situations such as the above indicate four elements of constructing a knowledge community: gaining group acceptance, making comparisons, establishing networks and engaging in exchanges. Gaining group acceptance is a motivation triggering interactions.
Making comparisons enables individuals to reflect on their experiences so as to enable them to acquire new understandings within these circumstances. Networks facilitate knowledge sharing and also reinforce some influences from interactions. The concept of exchange implies the power of the market, which affects the development of knowledge creation and sharing.
VI. Conclusion
The cases that have been introduced in this study indicate that public servants’ inter-actions may affect knowledge sharing and creation because of three keys: the leadership, the common value and the environment to cultivate knowledge networks. Discussing how each of the keys influences knowledge interactions, we have especially pointed out that forming a common value for the public sector is crucial, because it may trigger public
servants’ conscious and unconscious learning.
The common value cannot be completed in itself, it needs responses derived from in-teractions to make it crucial. These responses include gaining the group’s acceptance, making comparisons, establishing interpersonal networks and engaging in exchanges.
Through these interactions, individuals gain new understandings not only to improve their professional knowledge, but also to comprehend the meaning of the world. In this situa-tion, knowledge creation is a by-product of comprehending, while it is also the foundation and the result of one’s daily sense-making activities.
This research indicates that a sluggish learning environment such as the public sector in Taiwan is not really hopeless in terms of learning. The process of employees’ daily life interactions still implies the potential to break the power hierarchy of the bureaucracy so as to facilitate members’ learning of organizational knowledge.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Social identity and social cognition. Oxford: Black-well.
Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks and communities of practice. OD Practitioner Online, 32(4). Retrieved December 23, 2005, from http://www.vernaallee.com/
value_networks/KnowledgeNetworksAndCommunitiesOfPractice-28Jan07.pdf Araujo, L. (1998). Knowledge and learning as networking. Management Learning, 3(9):
317-336.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1): 64-77.
Baines, A. (1997). Exploiting organizational knowledge in the learning organization.
Work Study, 46(6): 202-206.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice, In D.
Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environ-ments (pp. 25-56). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into prac-tice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.) Instructional technology: Past, pre-sent, and future (pp. 88-101). Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A
reconceptu-alization of educational practices, In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269-292). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Breu, K., & Hemingway, C. (2002). Collaborative processes and knowledge creation in communities-of-practice. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(3): 147-153.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organising knowledge. California Management Re-view, 40(3): 90-111.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1): 32-42.
Candy, P. C., & Crebert, R. G. (1991). Ivory tower to concrete jungle. Journal of Highter Education, 62: 570-592.
Carotenuto, L., Etienne, W., Fontaine, M., Friedman, J., Muller, M., Newberg, H., Simp-son, M., Slusher, J., & StevenSimp-son, K. (1999). Community space: Toward flexi-ble support for voluntary knowledge communities. Community Space Position Paper, April: 1-8.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics, In L. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honour of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies.
Organization Studies, 21(1): 141-161.
Obstfeld, D. (2002). Knowledge creation, social networks and innovation: An integrative study. Academy of Management Proceedings, TIM, pp. H1-H6. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from database (Business Source Premier) on the Word Wide Web: http://www.ebsco.com
Dixon, N. M. (1997). The hallways of learning. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4): 23-24.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41(2): 79.
Elwell, F. W. (2005). Verstehen: Max Weber’s homepage. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm#Bureaucracy Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., & Odella, F. (1998). Toward a social understanding of how
people learn in organizations. Management Learning, 29(3): 273-297.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1991). Bridging difference – Effective intergroup communication.
London: Sage.
Harvey, L., MacDonald, M., & Hill, J. (2000). Theories and methods. London: Hodder and Stoughton Educational.
Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1): 27-38.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3): 5-14.
Kirby, J. R., Knapper, C. K., Evans, C. J., Carty, A. E., & Gadula, C., (2003). Approaches to learning at work and workplace climate. International journal of Training and Development, 7(1): 31-52.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1990). Classic and current social comparison re-search: Expanding the perspective. Psychology Bulletin, 108:195-208.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masi, R. J., & Cooke, R. A. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms, and organizational productivity. International journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(1): 16-47.
Millen, D. R., & Muller, M. J. (2001). Computer-supported communities of practice.
Retrieved April 1, 2009 from http://domino.research.ibm.com/cambridge/
research.nsf/58bac2a2a6b05a1285256b30005b3953/5fe8cf56251d1adf85256c 31004dd0b3/$FILE/TR2002-04.pdf
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organiza-tional advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242-266.
Parker, A., Cross, R., & Walsh, D. (2001). Improving collaboration with social network analysis. Knowledge Management Review, 4(2): 24-28.
Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in vir-tual learning communities. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3): 384-392.
Roth, W. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4-5 classroom during a unit on civil en-gineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing re-sources and practices. Cognition and instruction, 14(2): 179-220.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organiza-tion. London: Century Business.
Shipman, M. D. (1981). Aspects of modern sociology– The limitations of social
re-search. Essex: Longman Group Limited.
Squire, K. D., & Johnson, C. B. (2000). Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. Educational Technology, Research and Develop-ment, 48(1): 23-43.
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. London: Pit-man.
Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Robertson, M. (2002). The construction of ‘communities of practice’ in the management of innovation. Management Learning, 33(4): 477-496.
Tennant, M. (1988). Psychology and adult learning. London: Routledge.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.