Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness
Intellectual teamwork
Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism
Organization Science
The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation
Organization Science
Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities
Organization Science
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Organization Science
Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies
Organization Science
Remembrance of Things Past? The Dynamics of Organizational Forgetting
Management Science
Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking
Organization Science
Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal
Exploring the effect of boundary objects on knowledge interaction
Decision Support Systems
Hi-index | 0.00 |
This paper challenges the popular notions of tacit and explicit organizational knowledge and argues that its philosophical underpinnings derived from Gilbert Ryle are problematic due to their logical behaviourist perspective. The paper articulates the philosophical problem as the neglect of any role for the mind in organizational activity and the representation of mental activity as purely a set of behaviours. An alternative realist philosophy is advanced taking into account the potential of adopting a number of competing philosophical perspectives. The paper forwards a realist theory of organizational knowledge that moves beyond the surface behaviours of tacit and explicit knowledge and argues that collective consciousness and organizational memory play primary and deeper roles as knowledge processes and structures. Consciousness is not a Hegelian world spirit but rather a real process embedded in people's brains and mental activity. Further, the paper argues that organizational routines provide the contingent condition or `spark' to activate organizational knowledge processes. The implications of this model are explored in relation to the measurement of intellectual capital. The theory developed in this paper represents the first attempt to provide a coherent philosophically grounded framework of organizational knowledge that moves organizational theory beyond neat conversion processes of tacit and explicit knowledge.