Issues of trust in Knowledge Management
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb040775 |
| Date | 01 April 2000 |
| Pages | 44-51 |
| Published date | 01 April 2000 |
| Author | Keith Patrick,Grahame Rourke,Nigel Phillips |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
Issues of trust in
Knowledge
Management
by Keith Patrick, Grahame Rourke and
Nigel Phillips, School of Computing
Information Systems and Mathematics,
South Bank University
A common feature of
the
Knowledge
Management (KM) discourse, written or
spoken, and regardless of whether it is
technologically or people orientated, is the
stress on the importance of trust. The
importance of trust can be seen in its regular
citing as a critical success factor in any
knowledge management initiative. This poses
a significant question, when we examine the
last twenty years of management strategies,
they can be seen to undermine
trust.
The role of trust
The increasingly central role of trust could be seen
in the increased focus throughout the 1990's,
where it was seen to be at the heart of collabora-
tion (Herriot et al 1998), with its lack reducing
co-operative efforts. (Bromily & Cummings 1992)
The decline in 'social capital' of which trust forms
a fundamental aspect, is acknowledged in Ameri-
can society and work organisations. "People
increasingly cannot count on the loyalty to others
as a basis for reciprocity, they cannot trust others."
(Kramer & Tyler 1996) This is a reality similarly
recognised in the UK. (Herriot et al 1998) This is
entwined with an increasing strategic significance
of collaboration and co-operation in business
which was acknowledged in the mid 90's, (Kanter
1994) but, this significance has increased with
technological advances and the globalisation of the
marketplace.
This represents an inconsistency in the practice of
management, whose behaviour can crush or restrict
the development of
trust.
These are various, and
include for example, downsizing, performance
related pay, business process re-engineering
(BPR),
increase in part time and temporary
staff,
traditional command and control management
styles,
and hire and fire policies. This can place
alongside the lessening of job security and the
infringing of the 'psychological contract' that
exists between the individual and organisation.
This gives rise to possessive individualism or
self-
aggrandisement which is opportunistic in nature
and wealth driven.
The role of trust in the concept of Social Capital
(Stewart 1997) can be seen when considered the
following definitions:
"as the wealth (or benefit) that exists
because of
an
individual's social
relationships."
(Lessor 2000)
"value that accrues to an individual or
organisation through who they know and
how they use it" (Prusak 2000, direct quote)
and Putnam who describes in the following terms;
"features of social organisations such as
networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for
mutual benefit". (1995, p66)
Norms clearly figure strongly in interactions or
groups, where norms can be viewed as a group's
unspoken rules, "...generally agreed upon informal
rules that guide group members' behaviour".
(Hackman, 1992) With norms seen to extend from
precedents set over time, a legacy from other
situations or experiences, explicit declarations
from others, critical or significant events in the
groups' history. Axelrod (1997, p47) describes
norm as
"...existing in a given social setting to the
extent that individuals usually act in a
certain way and are often punished when
seen not to be acting in this way"
Taking a very simple model of human interaction,
Axelrod observed how a dominant group of norms
would develop with relatively few and small
alternative groups.
44
—
VINE 121
To continue reading
Request your trial