Page 179 -

168 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

importance is at the internal boundary between marketing and R&D (Rothwell
et al., 1974). It may seem paradoxical to discuss boundary-spanning within an
organization, but a repeated research finding is that different groups within
firms often fail to share knowledge. Sometimes this is due to organizational
politics. Frequently knowledge worker groups will exploit their knowledge as
a power-base to influence other groups within the organization, including top
management (Willem and Scarbrough, 2006). Equally, some individuals may
exploit their position at the boundaries of different groups to derive personal
power for themselves. Where this happens they act more as a ‘gatekeeper’ than
a boundary-spanner, cleverly manipulating the flow of knowledge and informa-
tion to pursue their own personal objectives (Pettigrew, 1973). A similar obser-
vation may apply to the way in which certain networks constrain the spread of
new ideas (Swan et al., 1999a). This applies, for example, to professional groups
who establish and control boundaries around specialized work. On other occa-
sions, groups within the organization may find it difficult to share knowledge
not because they are particularly resistant, but because they operate in differ-
ent social worlds and are consequently incapable of grasping the value of other
groups’ knowledge (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995; Carlile, 2002). In this context,
boundary spanning individuals become important in translating the experience
of particular individuals or groups into the language understood by others in the
wider organization (Cook and Brown, 1999).
While much of the research on boundary-spanners has focused on their orga-
nizational impact, in some situations they can also play a key entrepreneurial role
by being strategically positioned between groups. Entrepreneurial knowledge
workers can gain great benefits by positioning themselves in the so-called ‘struc-
tural holes’ which separate non-overlapping sources of information between
networks (Burt, 1992). This allows individuals to act as ‘knowledge brokers’ by
trading in the knowledge which is available in one network yet is in scarce supply
in another.

>> NETWORKS AS COMMUNITIES
From a networks as communities perspective, social networks are seen as pro-
viding a vital context for the creation and sharing of knowledge. This places a
different emphasis on the characteristics of such networks, with less focus on
their structure and scope, and more on the way that network members engage
with and form a community that is able to shape their thoughts and actions.
The major differences between this view and the view of networks as chan-
nels are outlined in Table 8.1. These contrasting views show that significant
differences can exist between social networks in their structures, benefits for
participants and patterns of evolution. While the table presents these differences
in a stylized way, it is important to recognize that social networks which oper-
ate primarily as channels have very different dynamics and effects compared to
those which develop more as communities. Thus, a channel type of network will

6/5/09 7:19:35 AM
9780230_522015_09_cha08.indd 168
9780230_522015_09_cha08.indd 168 6/5/09 7:19:35 AM