Page 102 -

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN TEAMS 91

cratic control to a system of self-managed teams. Senior management at this
organization set out a vision for these teams, which the teams accepted. This vision
enshrined values such as team autonomy, responsibility and achieving objectives.
These shared values led the teams to develop a set of norms to guide their behav-
iour (e.g. we need to be at work on time). Over time, these simple norms were
turned into highly formalized and objective rules (e.g. if you are more than five
minutes late, you will lose a day’s pay). Other team members censored individuals
who failed to abide by these rules. Sewell (1998) has subsequently demonstrated
how this team surveillance can also develop through electronic communication
as well as where those involved are interacting face-to-face.
The Barker (1993) case demonstrates very clearly how a new form of control
emerges very quickly within the context of self-managed teams. He refers to this
new form of control as ‘concertive’ control. Concertive control shifts power
from management to the workers themselves. The individual team members col-
laborate to develop their own ideas, norms and rules that enable them to act in
ways that are functional for the organization. Essentially, teams can create a sys-
tem of control that is more powerful and repressive than traditional bureaucratic
systems of control. In the Barker case the team control was far more powerful
than had been the traditional hierarchical managerial control since team mem-
bers could constantly monitor the behaviour of each other. In effect, the other
team members had become peer managers. This can be stressful for individuals
but can also detract from the creativity potential of the team; following team
rules can become more important than finding the creative solution to problems
or exploiting opportunities, again demonstrating the power of the logic of con-
sequences as opposed to the logic of appropriateness.
These power issues become even more exaggerated when the knowledge shar-
ing involves more than one organization. For example, if a small biotechnology
company is working collaboratively with a large pharmaceutical to develop a
very new cancer treatment, it may be the small biotechnology company that has
the greatest expertise in relation to the science involved even though the large
pharmaceutical company has the financial resources needed to move the devel-
opment through the very expensive clinical trials stages. This creates competing
sources of legitimacy, which can lead to complex dynamics with those involved
having to constantly negotiate and bargain about what approach to take. These
inter-organizational problems will be explored more fully in the next chapter.

>> ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF TEAM-WORK
FOR EFFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND
KNOWLEDGE CREATION
The sections above have demonstrated that while working collaboratively in
teams can potentially create synergies so that those involved share knowledge and
expertise which allows them to produce an output which is better than could have
been achieved by any individual working alone, teams can also produce outputs
which are worse than could have been produced by the most competent team

6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 91 6/5/09 7:00:26 AM
9780230_522015_05_cha04.indd 91