the paradoxes of knowledge management: an eastern philosophical perspective

INFORMATION

Information and Organization 16 (2006) 1–26

www.elsevier.com/locate/infoandorg

ANDORGANIZATION

Review

The paradoxes of knowledge management: Aneastern philosophical perspective

Bongsug Chae *, James M. Bloodgood

Department of Management, College of Business Administration,

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA

Received 26 January 2005; received in revised form 17 June 2005; accepted 17 June 2005

Abstract

This article proposes paradox as a novel lens for viewing and understanding KM and therole of information technology. The article builds a paradoxical framework that integratesextant understandings of paradox from philosophy and organization studies. The frameworkincludes the discussion of the nature of paradox, its usefulness for understanding KM, itsmanagement and finally an alternative, paradoxical view of KM. Using the proposed viewof KM we then review KM-related studies mainly in the field of information systems and orga-nization studies and identify exemplary tensions and paradoxes in KM phenomena. Thisreview serves three purposes: (1) it organizes and structures the jumble of topics in KM byanalyzing critically the way the literature approaches those topics; (2) it illustrates the implic-itly unitary view of KM by extant studies; and (3) it illustrates the potential value of the par-adoxical framework for fostering creative and complex insights into future inquiry of KM.Then, we discuss how to embrace and even nurture KM tensions and paradoxes and, froma paradoxical view, discuss organizational characteristics and information technology neces-sary for successful KM practices. Finally, several implications for research and practice aredrawn.� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge management; Paradox; Information technology; Eastern philosophy

1471-7727/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.06.003

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 785 532 3185.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Chae), [email protected] (J.M. Bloodgood).

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2 B. Chae, J.M. Bloodgood / Information and Organization 16 (2006) 1–26

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22. A framework for knowledge management: paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1. Identifying paradoxes and tensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2. How to manage paradoxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3. A new logic: a paradoxical view of KM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Tensions and paradoxes in knowledge management: a review of exemplars . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Paradoxes of learning: exploitation vs. exploration; single
loop vs. double loop; situated or accidental vs. purposeful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2. Paradoxes of organizing: formal (deliberate) vs. informal (emergent),

control vs. autonomy; integration vs. differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3. Paradoxes of belonging: openness vs. closure; cooperation vs.

competition; community-interest vs. self-interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. A way forward to embrace and nurture KM paradoxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Paradoxical learning: paradoxes of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1. Organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical learning . . . . 14
4.2. Paradoxical organizing: paradoxes of organizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1. Organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical organizing . . 16
4.3. Paradoxical belonging: paradoxes of belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1. Organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical belonging . . . 19
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. Introduction

As the economy shifts to the postindustrial era, intangible assets (such asknowledge) gain importance over more traditional resources (e.g., land and cap-ital) in organizations (Alavi, 2000). Along with this, Knowledge Management(KM) emerges as one of the most popular, important areas of inquiry in aca-demic research and management practice today (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans,2003; Ruggles, 1998). KM first appeared in industries and functional areas thatbasically sell knowledge – professional services, pharmaceuticals, research anddevelopment functions – in the late 1980s and 1990s. It is now quickly movinginto other industries, including manufacturing, financial services, governmentand military organizations, and even non-government organizations (NGOs)(Grover & Davenport, 2001). We expect this trend to continue among organiza-tions. KM is also sweeping through several academic fields, including organiza-tional strategy (Eisenhardt & Santos, 2002). Several recent books and journalspecial issues illustrate the current interest in KM in the information systems fieldalone (e.g., Management Science (Argote et al., 2003), MIS Quarterly (Zmud,2002), Journal of Management Information Systems (Grover & Davenport,2001) and Information Technology & People (Gray & Meister, 2003)).

B. Chae, J.M. Bloodgood / Information and Organization 16 (2006) 1–26 3

KM is facing some important issues and challenges as it becomes more pervasiveand common in academic research and management practice. For example, as moreorganizations become involved in KM-related initiatives (e.g., deployment of KMtechnologies, organizational change programs), there are more reports of KM fail-ures than success (Malhotra, 2004; Mertins, Heisig, & Vorbeck, 2001). For example,a study that interviewed 1000 German firms and 200 Europeans about the effective-ness of their KM practices involving Databases, Lotus Notes, Groupware, etc.,reports several challenges in implementing KM initiatives and indicates that less thanten percent were happy about their KM (Mertins et al., 2001). Therefore, some nat-ural questions would be ‘‘why is there a high failure rate of KM initiative and whatshould be done by organizations to improve KM effectiveness?’’

In the research side, there seems to be other issues as well. KM has beenapproached from various angles such as organizational theory, epistemology, cogni-tive science, management strategy, anthropology, and computer science, to name afew. This diversity has advanced and enriched the KM research by bringing diverseperspectives and concepts and topics of inquiry into the KM field. On the otherhand, such diversity leads to inquiring about an ever-increasing number of topicswith little convergence among KM studies (Gray & Meister, 2003). Along with this,extant studies reveal that there seems to be a rational, unitary view of and either/orthinking of various KM topics and concepts among studies. For example, studies usedifferent kinds of distinctions (e.g., tacit vs. explicit knowledge, social vs. technicalapproach, formal vs. informal learning) in KM as if they are not interrelated. Alsomost research on KM assumes that knowledge has positive implications for organi-zations (Schultz & Leidner, 2002). This tendency of divergence and a unitary empha-sis raises several questions. First, can too much divergence reduce our ability to gainan understanding of how KM topics fit together? And second, can a unitaryapproach, by itself, provide a comprehensive understanding of how organizationscan most effectively use knowledge?

To this end, this article proposes paradox (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000;Van de Ven & Poole, 1988) as a novel lens for viewing and understanding KM andthe role of information technology. By connecting KM topics and explaining theKM processes at work in organizations, paradox can help to organize the KM fieldand enhance our understanding of effective KM practices. We begin by building aframework that integrates extant understandings of paradox from philosophy andorganization studies. The framework includes the discussion of the nature of para-dox, its usefulness for understanding KM, its management and finally an alternative,paradoxical view of KM. Using the proposed view of KM we then review KM-related studies mainly in the field of information systems and organization studiesand identify exemplary tensions and paradoxes in KM phenomena. This reviewserves three purposes: (1) it organizes and structures the jumble of topics in KMby analyzing critically the way the literature approaches those topics; (2) it illustratesthe implicitly unitary view of KM by extant studies; and (3) it illustrates the potentialvalue of the paradoxical framework for fostering creative and complex insights intofuture inquiry of KM. From this, we discuss how to embrace and even nurture KMtensions and paradoxes and, from a paradoxical view, discuss organizational


characteristics and information technology necessary for successful KM practices. Inconclusion, we suggest implications for research and practice.

2. A framework for knowledge management: paradox

The precise definition and attributes of paradox are not yet common componentsof organizational analysis. However, ‘‘paradox in the literature involves contradic-tory, mutually exclusive elements that are present and operate at the same time’’(Cameron & Quinn, 1988, p.2). Paradox is ‘‘the simultaneous presence of two mutu-ally exclusive assumptions or statements; taken singly, each is incontestably true, buttaken together they are inconsistent’’ (Van de Ven & Poole, 1988). Van de Ven andPoole cautiously note that ‘‘if unacknowledged and unresolved, a paradox can driveresearchers and practitioners to emphasize one pole over the other in an attempt tomaintain an elusive consistency’’ (p.21).

2.1. Identifying paradoxes and tensions

The use of paradox to help structure our understanding of KM improves uponexisting approaches in two ways. First, paradox compels researchers to simulta-neously focus on both poles of the paradox rather than focusing on just one. Focus-ing on both poles provides the researcher with a significant contextual factor thathelps increase our understanding and explain additional variance. For instance,focusing on the aspect of competition without simultaneously considering coopera-tion provides an incomplete view of competition. Competitors normally do not actto the same degree of competitiveness at all times. Rather, there are times that theywork together toward a common goal, such as guiding legislation, and the cooper-ation affects and is affected by ongoing competitive behavior. The presence of eachpole can significantly affect the other pole and the influence would be missed or ig-nored if a paradoxical view was not used. Variance would either go unexplained orbe explained incorrectly.

A second way that paradox helps organize and increase our understanding is bydelineating the processes that occur over time as an organization moves between thetwo poles of a paradox. For example, the differentiation and integration that existswithin organizations in response to the external environment are not only importantindividually, but the organizational processes that occur between them can be signif-icant as well. Firm efforts to become more differentiated put pressure on the firm�sintegrative capacity (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). If the firm is subsequently able toincrease its integrative abilities to match the increased differentiation, then the firmis likely to perform better in its environment than if it had not increased integrationto the appropriate level. How this matching of differentiation and integration capa-bilities occurs is revealed through study of the process that occurs during this time.This process is highlighted by viewing it as a paradox whereby the degree of differ-entiation and integration is not best determined at a point in time, but rather isdetermined over time as the firm attempts to differentiate, sees the need for more


integration, and through repetition hopefully finds an appropriate matching of thetwo.

Some significant research can be used to further illustrate the importance of view-ing phenomena as a paradox. Whittington (1988) helped to clarify the two poles ofenvironmental structure at a time when many researchers were focusing on one whileoverlooking the other. Most researchers argued the importance of the deterministicaspect of environmental structure, but did not adequately utilize the supportive as-pect of environmental structure. A structured environment provides the precondi-tions for firm action as well as providing a limit on certain firm actions.Whittington illustrated that the conclusions of some researchers may be erroneouswhen only the limiting aspect of a highly structured environment is evaluated. Effec-tive use of paradox would provide a means of simultaneously using both the limitingand supportive aspects of environmental structure, thereby avoiding incomplete orerroneous findings.

In the KM area, an important effort by researchers to include both poles of a par-adox was that of Schultz and Leidner (2002, p. 214). Their study attempted to high-light both intended and unintended consequences of managing organizationalknowledge. Unlike extant views of knowledge as positive, they saw knowledge asa double-edged sword: ‘‘while too little leads to inefficiencies, too much results inrigidities that tend to be counterproductive in a dynamically changing world’’.

2.2. How to manage paradoxes

Literature on paradoxes suggests different practices or strategies for managingparadoxes. For example, the work of Baxter and Montgomery (1996) focuses on par-adoxes emerging from close personal relationships. They believe that personal rela-tionships are organized around the dynamic interplay of opposing tendencies (e.g.,revelation and concealment, inclusion and seclusion) as they are enacted in interac-tion. They catalog several practices (e.g., denial, disorientation, balance) that part-ners use in the face of opposing relational forces. According to them, the ultimateeffectiveness of a strategy depends on how well it realizes, reflects and recreatesthe contradictory nature of social reality.

The study of Van de Ven and Poole (1988) discusses paradoxes in organizationstudies and presents four methods researchers use to deal with paradoxes. The firstmethod is �to accept the paradox and learn to live with it�. This is of little help wherechoices have to be made. Living with paradox without properly understanding itsessence has its costs; it may result in fragmentation of knowledge and counterpro-ductive bickering among proponents of each pole. The second method is to resolveparadoxes by clarifying levels of reference and the connections among them (e.g.,multilevel analysis). Again this is of little help informing practice. It provides littleguidance about how managers can handle this type of tension other than to recog-nize and prepare for it (Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002). Such sources of paradoxesmay exist simultaneously at multiple levels. The third method is to take the role oftime into account. The two poles of a paradox may succeed each other at differentpoints in time (Cheng & Van de Ven, 1996). Our earlier discussion suggests that


the two poles are likely to and should co-exist for the organization�s competitiveadvantage. For example, both knowledge integration and differentiation, not either,are needed for effective knowledge creation and sharing. While more useful than thefirst two methods because it is more illuminating, it too suffers from inadequateexplanatory power. The fourth method is to introduce new terms or a new logicto paradox, whereby a more complete description and understanding of the tensionsare revealed.

Although analytically distinct, those different methods can be combined in prac-tice (Van de Ven & Poole, 1988). In the remaining section we combine the firstand fourth method to explore KM paradoxes. Van de Ven and Poole point outthat the first method can serve as a preliminary step to the other three. Takingthis suggestion, we first accept rather than ignore paradoxes but further developa new logic called a paradoxical view of KM. This novel view not only embracesbut also nurtures two poles or opposing principles that exist in KM research andpractice.

2.3. A new logic: a paradoxical view of KM

The paradoxical view we propose here is based on Eastern philosophy of viewingopposites. In general, the Eastern philosophical view of opposites differs from themore Western view of dialectics which contains thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Un-like the Western view that emphasizes resolving thesis and antithesis through synthe-sis, the Eastern view sees phenomena such as KM as inherently paradoxical andstresses dynamics and interrelatedness of opposing poles and both/and thinking inKM.

First, a paradoxical view supposes a ‘‘dialectical interplay’’ between two oppositepoles. In the Western world, this is in a similar fashion between structure and actionin Giddens�s (1984) concept of duality: Structure simultaneously constitutes and isconstituted by action. In Western philosophy, this similar, but distinctive, dialecticalview of nature was developed by philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Bhas-kar, etc. (cf. Bhaskar & Norrie, 1998). We can further enrich this view by incorpo-rating the Eastern view of opposites. One such concept is Yin and Yang intraditional Chinese philosophy (cf. Legge, 1959).

Yin and Yang refer to reality as seen in Chinese philosophy and can be cate-gorized in terms of two opposites. Yin stands for ‘‘the receptive, recessive, hidden,informed and background force and has the female and earth as its mainimages’’. Yang stands for ‘‘the creative, forwarding-pushing, manifest andsystematic force and has the male and heaven as its main images (Cheng, 1987,p.34)’’. The symbol of yin and yang, represents the complementary nature oftwo opposites, their mutual dependency, and their interdependence and the East-ern view of the nature with a constant change/transformation and harmony andbalance.

According to the paradoxical view from the Eastern world, opposing forces notonly dialectically interact with each other but they are also mutually dependent.They contribute to and complement each other. Everything is the product of two


opposing forces, yin and yang, which are the polar manifestations of the Tao – thatis, the ‘‘way,’’ or the natural, ideal state of being (Kim, 2001). Thus, the paradoxicalview involves dual entities (e.g., cold and hot, night and day, water and fire) inunderstanding the universe. Yin and Yang are paradoxical because ‘‘one inherentlyhas the other, and vice versa; thus one has two (p.288)’’. The two eyes of the fishshow that even within the yin there is some of the yang, and vice versa. ‘‘Everythingis a synthetic unity of yin and yang in various states of their functioning’’ (Cheng,1987, p. 34). ‘‘Yin gives form to the unstable, undifferentiated dynamism of yang.’’For example, ‘‘activity (yang) is what manifests as form, whereas relationship (yin) iswhat gives form’’ (Yuan, 1997, p. 306).

In the paradoxical view the apparent opposites in KM contexts neither compro-mise nor repel each other but rather attract each other and thereby build a compositewhole. In other words, we can express and understand things not in terms of oneexclusive of the other, but in the dynamic combination of those dual entities of oppo-sition and contradiction: the bipolar entities exist in the form of both yin and yang(Kim, 2001). One coexists with the other. For example, it may be said that knowl-edge exists in the form of both tacit and explicit and as such social and technical to-gether build one composite whole, the Tao or the ‘‘ideal’’ approach to KM. Itimplies that in duality is found unity.

Then, harmony and balance of opposites in KM become important. ‘‘Neither yinnor yang is good or bad inherently. Yin is not inferior to yang and vice versa’’ (Kim,2001, p. 299). The Eastern view of opposites holds that an imbalance between yinand yang in the body causes illness. Therefore, emphasizing one is counterproduc-tive. Harmony between yin and yang means health, and disharmony or undue pre-ponderance of one brings disease and death (Kim, 2001). The balance would notalways be exact, but rather it would be in a state of constant change, based on boththe internal and external environment. In addition, no single person or entity deter-mines its dynamics. It implies that excessive and imbalanced emphasis on one polecan become counterproductive in KM contexts. Instead, organizations should seekbalance and harmony between yin and yang to obtain and maintain organizationalhealthiness.

In summary, a paradoxical view understands those opposite poles in terms ofduality, mutual interdependence and unity, harmony and balance and continuouschange. According to this view, the opposites must be sought and be co-present.When in harmony and balance, they will attract each other and thereby build a com-posite whole of KM.

3. Tensions and paradoxes in knowledge management: a review of exemplars

In this section we review KM-related studies from information systems andorganization studies and introduce exemplars of tensions and paradoxes in KMphenomenon. To summarize such varied exemplars, we categorize them withinthree key labels in KM studies – learning, organizing and belonging. These threecategories also appear in the study by Lewis (2000) that focuses on paradox and


identifies three categories of paradoxes from the review of organization studies:learning paradoxes, organizing paradoxes and belonging paradoxes. ‘‘Learningparadoxes revolve around processes of sensemaking, innovation and transforma-tion that reveal interwoven tensions between old and new. Organizing paradoxesstress conflicting yet simultaneous demands of control and flexibility examined instudies of organizational performance, empowerment and formalization. Finally,belonging paradoxes signify complex relationships between self and other, high-lighting the problematic nature of individuality and group and organizationalboundaries (Lewis, 2000, p.765)’’. While acknowledging varied concepts and topicsin KM literature, we believe that those three labels commonly appear in many KMstudies in information systems and organization studies and may well representoverall KM themes.

3.1. Paradoxes of learning: exploitation vs. exploration; single loop vs. double loop;

situated or accidental vs. purposeful

Learning is a key concept in studies of KM. Related to this, there are several spe-cific concepts such as individual learning, organizational learning and learning orga-nization (Levitt & March, 1988; Senge, 1990). The ability to learn provides animportant advantage to organizations. Several special issues (e.g., Organization Sci-ence, 1991, (2)1; Information and Organizations, 1995; Organizational Studies, 1996)are devoted to the concept of learning.

There are a number of key sources of learning paradoxes. First, a key source is thetension between old and new – a struggle between the comfort of the past and theuncertainty of the future (Lewis, 2000). This tension is also known as exploitationand exploration (March, 1991) or incremental and radical learning. Researchersemphasize the importance of old routines and past experiences – organizationalmemory (Walsh & Gerardo, 1991). Huber (1991) argues that organizations mustappreciate their past experiences, both successes and failures, and learn from them.Levitt and March (1988), among others, view organizational learning as routine-based and history-dependent. Garvin (1993) states that learning organizationsshould be skilled at learning from their own experiences and best practices of others,and by propagating knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.Stein (1995) states that organizational memory is essential to organizational learn-ing, while learning is a necessary condition for memory. Building organizationalmemory information systems can support organizational memory (Stein & Zwass,1995).

However, others are cautious about what Levitt and March (1988) and Miller(1993) refer to as ‘‘competency traps’’ and ‘‘simplicity’’, respectively. A competencytrap occurs when organizations blindly adhere to old routines and formulas withoutregard for changing conditions. This leads to simplicity, an overwhelming preoccu-pation with a single goal, strategic activity or worldview that increasingly precludesconsideration of any others. In dynamic and uncertain environments, what organi-zations need is a continuous ‘‘doubting’’ or ‘‘disbelieving’’ of their current realities(Weick, 1979) in order to avoid competency traps.


Another key source of learning paradox is the tension between purposeful and sit-uated – a struggle between the need of deliberation for learning and the situated,accidental aspect of learning in real work settings. This is related to the question�When do organizations learn?� (Huysman, 2000). Organizations require learningstyles variously described as double-loop, generative or higher-level. Double-looplearning occurs when underlying assumptions, norms, and objectives are open to de-bate and change (Argyris and Schon, 1978). Generative learning requires new waysof looking at the world (Senge, 1990). In general, researchers emphasize purposeful,active and cognitive learning for radical change. Authors in information systems as-sert that computer-based systems can be built to support this kind of radical learning(Hine & Goul, 1998). As an example, Hine and Goul (1998) propose a prototype sys-tem called Organizational Learning Support System (OLSS) that supports the pro-cesses of developing and exchanging organizational members� underlying opinions,assumptions and interpretations of the environment.

Other researchers see the importance of more accidental and situated learning inworkplaces. For example, Lave and Wenger (1991) explain learning through the con-cept of Legitimate Peripheral Participation. This concept explains learning and knowl-edge sharing so that newcomers to the community have access to old-timers and learnfrom them by participating in practice, gradually moving from peripheral to full par-ticipation. Thus, learning is a social process rather than a purely cognitive and individ-ual one. Here learning is viewed as situated. Situatedmeans learning is ‘‘interactive’’ or‘‘in a physical setting’’ with other people. Informal work units in which people do ‘‘realwork’’ (Brown & Duguid, 1989) generate significant learning and innovation.

3.2. Paradoxes of organizing: formal (deliberate) vs. informal (emergent), control vs.

autonomy; integration vs. differentiation

Organizing paradoxes are related to several tensions in KM contexts: how to ap-proach KM? Deliberate or emergent approach? How to manage individuals andgroups for effective KM? Formally or informally? How to support KM activitiesof individuals, groups and the organization as a whole? With control or more auton-omy? How to effectively create and share new knowledge?

First, a key source of organizing paradoxes is the tension between formal (ordeliberate) and informal (emergent) strategies for KM. For example, researchersemphasize deliberate strategies or planning (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985) for KMand have popularized the view of knowledge as a valuable strategic asset (Davenport& Prusak, 1998). A deliberate KM approach is the realization of strategic andplanned patterns of knowledge creation and sharing. From the deliberate KMschool, knowledge can be managed – collected, stored, transferred and reused –and thus knowledge creation and sharing could be formally approached (Hansen,1999). Zack (1999) focuses on how to configure firm resources and capabilities toleverage codified knowledge. Among Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney�s (1999) widelyadopted classification of KM strategies the codification stresses the explicit dimen-sion of knowledge and a formal approach for the �management� of knowledge crea-tion and sharing using information technology.


Alternatively, some studies conceptualize community of practice (COP) as spon-taneous forms of organizing and forums for knowledge creation and sharing. Brownand Duguid (1991) contend ‘‘communities cannot be created in a top-town fashion,but organizational structures and procedures should aim to preserve the �healthyautonomy� of communities’’. Ardichvili, Page, and Wentling (2002) contend COPsemerge spontaneously so KM professionals must avoid attempts to manage them.

Another key source of this paradox is the tension between integration and differ-entiation. Knowledge integration is critical for effective KM and organizational suc-cess. Dougherty (1992) notes that successful product innovation in large firmsrequires knowledge integration among technical, marketing, manufacturing, andsales departments. She examined the difficulty of knowledge integration and foundtwo interpretive schemes – departmental thought worlds and organizational productroutines – inhibiting knowledge integration. Senge (1990) points out that learningorganizations require the ability to create systemic knowledge by integrating theirvarious interdependent parts. Grant (1996a) asserts that the essence of organiza-tional capability is the integration of individuals� specialized knowledge. Brownand Duguid (2001a) also see the importance of knowledge integration. This led themto suggest such social strategies as translation, brokering and boundary objects.Many existing KM applications are developed for knowledge integration (Zack,1999).

Other studies emphasize knowledge differentiation. Before knowledge is inte-grated, each thought world or department must develop its unique, specializedknowledge. This set of specialized knowledge bases throughout an organization pro-vides the organization with the capacity to successfully engage its environment. Car-lile (2002) asserts that knowledge boundaries are a perpetual necessity because muchof what organizations produce has a foundation in the specialization of differentkinds of knowledge. Boland and Tenkasi (1995) developed the concept of perspectivemaking that refers to the process whereby a community develops and strengthens itsown knowledge domain and practices.

Closely related to the above, tension between control and autonomy (Starbuck,1992) is another source of organizing paradoxes. Researchers often emphasize theneed of control for knowledge �management�. Zack (1999) notes organizations areso complex that knowledge is fragmented, difficult to locate and share, and thereforeredundant, inconsistent, or not used at all. He suggests the need of KM architectureto configure firm resources and capabilities to leverage codified knowledge. Alavi(2000) discusses the importance of �managing� organizational knowledge and sug-gests that information technologies can be effectively used to ‘‘(1) enhance the orga-nization, storage, and accessibility of explicit knowledge and (2) to identifyindividuals who possess required knowledge and facilitate contact and communica-tion between the source of knowledge and the knowledge seeker (p.28)’’.

On the other hand, �knowledge workers� demand high levels of autonomy(Robertson & Swan, 2003), and autonomy has been considered as a key success ofa knowledge creating company (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Janz and Prasarnpha-nich (2003) argue that organizations should facilitate knowledge creation and dis-semination by allowing knowledge workers to have freedom to exercise authority


with their knowledge and emphasize autonomy for effective KM. Hara and Kling(2002) emphasize autonomy as one of the core components of professional commu-nities of practice (COP). Drawn from their empirical study, they argue that COPsinclude little training, people in them need to learn continuously, and thus autonomyis an important component.

3.3. Paradoxes of belonging: openness vs. closure; cooperation vs. competition;

community-interest vs. self-interest

Belonging paradoxes are becoming more prevalent in today�s business environ-ment. To survive and thrive in today�s competitive economy, organizations areincreasingly migrating to new organizational structures in which partnerships andalliances are becoming more popular. Belonging paradoxes are reflected in suchquestions as Is knowledge a private property or a public one? What motivates peopleto share knowledge with others? Should organizations share knowledge with others?Organizations likely face more paradoxes of belonging due to their paradoxical nat-ure of social relationships in today�s interconnected and global world.

One key source of belonging paradox is tension between openness and closure inthe context of knowledge sharing between organizations. This tension would also beviewed between cooperation vs. competition in KM context. Researchers emphasizethe need of openness. Hakansson and Snehota (1999) claim ‘‘no business is an is-land’’. Closed organizations cannot survive over the long run, and isolation simplymeans death (Borys & Jemison, 1989). Nadler, Shaw, and Walton (1995) assert thatthe old ‘‘kill-the-competitor’’ mindset is no longer appropriate. Levitt and March(1988) view learning from the experience of others as the key capability organiza-tions must possess.

In other research, it is emphasized that there is a need to protect knowledge fromothers. This research stream is related to the resource-based view of firm (Wernerfelt,1984) to the extent that the concept of resources is extended to include intangible as-sets, and specifically to knowledge-based resources (Grant, 1996b). Grant (1996b)views knowledge as residing within individuals in the organization, and the organi-zation exists to integrate the specialized knowledge possessed by individuals. Thus,coordination within the firm, compared to interorganizational coordination, is morecritical for competitive advantage. Liebeskind (1996) specifically sees a firm�s com-petitive advantage as lying in its ability to prevent knowledge leaking across poten-tially porous boundaries. Liebeskind argues that firms have particular institutionalcapabilities which allow them to protect knowledge from expropriation and imita-tion. Grindley and Teece (1997) note the emergence of increasing protection of anorganization�s know-how afforded by intellectual property management worldwideand emphasize the further need of managing and protecting a firm�s knowledge fromothers through such methods as patents.

Closely related to the above, another source of tension – self-interest vs. commu-nity-interest – is related to the question ‘‘what motivates knowledge sharing betweenorganizations?’’ Some authors have looked at this question at both the individualand community level. Wasko and Faraj (2000) argue that reviewing KM practices


indicates organizations are treating knowledge as a private good, owned either by theorganization or by its members. They argue that organizations tend to view knowl-edge as (1) objects or (2) embedded in individuals. Knowledge as an object perspec-tive assumes that knowledge can exist independently of human action and perceptionand is owned by the organization, rather than a personal asset of the individual. Theknowledge embedded in individuals perspective assumes knowledge is not owned bythe organization, but rather resides within the minds of individuals. In these two per-spectives, it is viewed that ‘‘people exchange their knowledge through market mech-anisms in order to receive commensurate benefits. They are motivated by self-interestand are less likely to exchange unless provided with tangible returns such as promo-tions, raises, and/or bonuses, or intangible returns such as reputation, status and di-rect obligation from the knowledge seeker (p.161)’’.

The third perspective proposed (Wasko & Faraj, 2000) is the knowledge embed-ded in community perspective, suggesting knowledge supercedes any one individual,is highly context dependent and is embedded within a learning community. Someresearchers have expanded the scope of the community. Brown and Duguid coinedthe term, ‘‘networks of practice (NOP)’’. Unlike COP, NOPs are occupationalgroups (Von Hippel, 1988) or social worlds. They have practice and knowledge incommon. Most members are unknown to one other. The links between membersare more indirect than direct. They are notable for their extensive reach but little rec-iprocity, since network members don�t interact with one another directly to any sig-nificant degree. The literature (Cohen & Fields, 1999; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998) putssimilar emphasis on the role of intra-firm networks or communities as a criticalsource of organizational advantage and corporate innovation. This perspective as-sumes the community collectively owns and maintains the knowledge. Therefore,knowledge is considered a public good. ‘‘The motivation for knowledge sharing isnot self-interest but care for the community (Wasko & Faraj, 2000, p.161)’’.

In this section we have reviewed KM literature and identified three categories –learning, organizing and belonging – of paradoxes in KM research and practice. Thisreview reveals: There are at least three categories of paradoxes within KM contexts,and several tensions exist in each paradox. The review also suggests, however, thatmost studies might have tended to treat two poles in each tension as if there is sep-aration and unrelatedness between them. This is due to formal logic – the basis oftraditional scientific inquiry – that tends to emphasize polarization. In the followingsection, we explore a way to fully embrace and even nurture the KM tensions andparadoxes introduced above. While applying the proposed paradoxical view ofKM to the three paradoxes, we use three paradoxical views – paradoxical learning,paradoxical organizing and paradoxical belonging—and discuss organizationalcharacteristics necessary for them to emerge in KM practice.

4. A way forward to embrace and nurture KM paradoxes

The paradoxical view of KM proposed earlier promotes both/and thinking ratherthan either/or thinking and pursues the composite whole (or the Tao) through the

Fig. 1. Exemplary paradoxes and tensions through Yin-Yang.


coexistence and complementarity of the opposite forces. The proposed paradoxicalview of learning, organizing and belonging captures the enlightening potential ofthree KM paradoxes identified earlier. It holds that learning, organizing and belong-ing are constituted by both yin and yang elements. Fig. 1 illustrates this view.

4.1. Paradoxical learning: paradoxes of learning

The paradoxical learning view seeks both poles in learning paradox. This viewholds that both yin and yang constitute learning. In the category of learning para-dox, single loop, exploitation and situated learning may represent yin elements oflearning while double loop, exploration and purposeful learning yang elements.These yin and yang of learning are dialectically interacting and mutually dependenton each other. The harmony and balance of yin and yang of learning are importantin KM strategy. Harmony and balance likely lead to unity or the ideal state of learn-ing where yin and yang continuously attract and complement each other. Conse-quently, organizations achieve success through paradoxical learning. On the otherhand, undue preponderance of either yin or yang can be counterproductive inKM practice. Some studies delineate this learning view in organizational settings.

The organizations which are good at both yin and yang of learning would becalled ambidextrous organizations. Tushman and O�Reilly (1996) argued that toremain successful over long periods, management and organizations must beambidextrous – able to implement both incremental (yin) and revolutionary (yang)learning. Their study of various companies in different industries (Tushman &


O�Reilly, 1996) illustrated the importance of balancing the tensions (e.g., exploitationand exploration) in learning for long-term organizational success. The other study(O�Reilly & Tushman, 2004) compares the results of organizational innovation ini-tiatives undertaken by 15 business units in nine different industries. The study showsthat ambidextrous organizations were highly successful when launching products orservices and more than 90% of the ambidextrous organizations achieved their goals.In these organizations, the yin and yang of learning complement rather than substi-tute for one another.

Other studies also support their findings. He and Wong�s (2004) empirical test ofthe ambidexterity proposition, based on a sample of 206 manufacturing firms, foundevidence consistent with the above claim by showing that: (1) the interaction betweenexploration and exploitation is positively related to organizational performance; and(2) the relative imbalance has a negative impact on organizational performance.Also, Knott�s empirical study (2002) of automobile industry product developmentindicates that exploitation and exploration are mutually dependent opposites andcomplement each other. She also observed that product development appears tocombine both exploration and exploitation, not one, in a single activity. When a bal-ance is sought, thus, engaging in exploitation makes firms more effective at explora-tion and vice versa.

In the information systems domain, Huysman (2000) also observed that learningis both situated and purposeful. While her study did not see the mutual dependencyof the two, she recognized that there is some bias in viewing learning as either pur-poseful or situated in the literature and the yin and yang of learning are present indesign activity. The study by Edelman and Benning (1999) saw the relationship be-tween incremental and radical change and proposed a model which depicts radicalorganizational change (double-loop) as emerging from a series of seemingly trivialsmall-scale changes (single-loop). On the other hand, other studies (March, 1991)indicate that emphasizing either yin or yang of learning tends to generate self-destructive mechanisms in the short or long term.

4.1.1. Organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical learning

However, as noted earlier, the relative balance of opposite poles in paradoxicallearning is in a state of constant change, based on the organizational environment.One single person, group or entity cannot fully determine this balance and change.However, certain organizational characteristics including organizational architec-ture, culture and information technology appear to be critical for paradoxical learn-ing to emerge (see Table 1).

The study of Tushman and O�Reilly (1996) indicates that paradoxical learning islikely to emerge and persist when there are multiple contradictory organizationalarchitectures, processes and cultures within the same organization. In terms oforganizational architecture, these organizations maintain contradictory structures– small autonomous groups for innovative ideas and one large-size organizationfor leveraging economies of scale and scope. A second commonality across thesefirms in terms of culture is their reliance on strong social controls. They are simul-taneously tight and loose. ‘‘They are tight in that corporate culture in each is

Table 1Summary of organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical learning

� Organizations should adopt multiple contradictory organizational architectures, process and cultures– Organizations need to maintain contradictory structures – small groups for innovative ideas and

one large-size organization for leveraging economies of scale and scope.– Organizational culture needs to rely on strong social controls that are simultaneously tight and loose

� Information technology can play an enabling role for paradoxical learning. For this, knowledge man-agement systems must be designed and implemented to enable both poles of learning simultaneously– Systems design must consider both poles of learning such as single loop and double loop

learning, rather than emphasizing either– Systems implementation must be conducted in a way both purposeful and situated learning

can occur simultaneously


broadly shared and emphasizes norms critical for innovation such as openness,autonomy, initiative and risk taking. The culture is loose in that the manner inwhich these common values are expressed varies according to the type of innova-tion that is required’’ (p.15).

Information technology for KM in organizations needs to be designed and con-figured in a manner that can facilitate paradoxical learning. As claimed by research-ers (Argyris, 1977; Stein & Zwass, 1995; Suchman, 1994) massive technologies forindividual, group and organizational tasks are often designed and configured withoveremphasis on one pole such as single loop and deliberative learning, whileneglecting the other pole. In this regard, technologies or so called KM systems cause,rather than cure, some of the learning problems organizations are facing today.

Researchers have proposed newmodels of KM systems design and implementationwhich appear to be promising for paradoxical learning. Malhotra (2002) proposed amodel of a new type of information systems called loose tight knowledge managementsystems that enable both poles of learning to be engaged simultaneously. Anotherexample is Courtney�s (2001) conceptual model of knowledge management systemcalled ‘‘Singerian’’ information systems that nurture both consensus-based (or singleloop) and conflict-based (or double loop) learning in organizations.

4.2. Paradoxical organizing: paradoxes of organizing

Similar to paradoxical learning, paradoxical organizing seeks both yin and yangin organizing. According to this view, both yin or feminine face and yang or mascu-line in style constitute organizing. In the category of organizing paradox, informal,autonomy and integration may represent yin elements of organizing while formal,control and differentiation the yang of organizing. These yin and yang of organizingdialectically interact and depend on each other. The harmony and balance of yin andyang of organizing are important in KM strategy. Harmony and balance lead tounity or the ideal state of organizing where yin and yang continuously attract andcomplement each other. Consequently, organizations achieve success through para-doxical organizing. Some previous studies delineate this paradoxical organizing inorganizational settings.


There has been a significant debate between formal planning and the emergent ap-proach in the literature (e.g., Mintzberg &Waters, 1985). With regard to KM strategyto organizing, some studies (Brews & Hunt, 1999) imply that formal planning and theemergent approach are complements and form part of ‘‘good’’ planning, especially inunstable environments. Planning or managing contains both a yin and yang face. For-mal planning is the yang face of organizing described as more aggressive, more inter-ventionist, and more like a medical cure while emergent planning is the yin face oforganizing which is more engaging, more inclusive and more like nursing care (Mintz-berg, 2001). Both faces of organizing should be recognized and sought.

Another way to view this is as follows. A highly formalized planning process mayappear ineffective in an uncertain environment. So a call could be made to make itless formal or deliberate. Without a paradoxical approach, to respond to this call,top managers may spend less time in formal business planning meetings and usethe available time to respond to the current day�s issues. Or they might plan lessfar ahead into the future. However, less formal planning might result in inadequateevaluations where it could in fact be beneficial. Alternatively, with a paradoxicalview, the interaction of informal and formal planning would be recognized and takeninto consideration. Extensive formal planning may enable a firm to formally set asidetime and effort for both short-term (emergent) and long-term (deliberate) planning.Thus, the firm is better prepared to communicate about and act upon suddenlychanging information and conditions because it does not have to figure out howto organize itself for this purpose. It already has a process set up to handle it. Theend result of using the paradoxical view could be that more attention is paid to for-mal planning so that enough informal planning will be performed.

As for the other tension (control vs. autonomy), the best managed companies arethose that can maintain harmony or balance between control and autonomy (Brown& Duguid, 2001b). Groups can be more flexible and perform more effectively whenthey operate with control mechanisms such as formal interventions (Okhuysen,2001). At the same time, autonomy can actually make control more effective. Whenthey are in harmony, the relationship generates a virtuous cycle where yin and yangattract each other. In contrast, undue preponderance of one side tends to lead toorganizational failure, in the form of either rigidity (lack of creativity) or chaos (lackof structure).

High performing organizations must be both highly differentiated and well inte-grated (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). For example, knowledge differentiation alonewithout integration can be a barrier to organizational innovation (Carlile, 2002). In-stead, knowledge differentiation is not inferior to integration and vice versa. EffectiveKM strategy must seek both and their complementarity for creating innovativeproducts and processes (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Carlile, 2002) where knowledgedifferentiation is the basis for knowledge integration which further enables moredifferentiation.

4.2.1. Organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical organizing

Paradoxical organizing does not occur in a vacuum. While it is not fully deter-mined by any single factor, certain organizational characteristics seem critical for

Table 2Summary of organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical organizing

� Organizations must adopt the notion of semi- or minimal structures in organizing KM– While some features such as responsibilities, project priorities and time intervals between

projects need to be prescribed, organizations should cultivate organizational improvisation– Organizations should promote ambidextrous leadership that maintain multiple, contradictory

cognitive styles and behaviors� KM systems need to play the role of semi or minimal structures for paradoxical organizing

– KM systems should be designed based on a principle of minimal critical specification– KM systems should be designed as well as emergent in technology-in-use


paradoxical organizing to emerge. One emerging paradoxical idea is ‘‘small is bigand powerful’’. From several studies, small appears as an important organizationalcharacteristic for the paradoxical organizing. Small structures are amplified (Weick,1993) and actually enable both the yin and yang faces of organizing (see Table 2).

Recently, several scholars have advanced the notion of semi- or minimal struc-tures to handle the paradoxical requirements encountered in organizing. Semi- orminimal structures mean ‘‘organizations in which some features are prescribed ordetermined (e.g., responsibilities, project priorities, time intervals between projects),but other aspects are not’’ (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, p. 28) or a certain musico-structure of jazz which ‘‘defines such performative basics as harmony, melody,rhythm and tempo, and, more fundamentally, form and composition’’ (Kamoche& Cunha, 2001, p. 744). These are small structures that exhibit partial order, andthey lie between the extremes of very rigid and highly chaotic organization.

To illustrate, multiple product innovation needs intensive knowledge creationand sharing activities among organizational members. Brown and Eisenhardt(1997) show that for organizations with successful product portfolios, semistruc-tures emerged in each time frame: some responsibilities, meetings and prioritieswere set, but the actual design process was almost unfettered. In a group setting,studies (Okhuysen, 2001) show formal, but simple interventions such as meetingscan play the role of semistructures that enabled both the yin and yang oforganizing.

In addition, paradoxical organizing relies on a new leadership that sees such ten-sions and organizing paradoxes. This new leadership like ambidextrous leadership(Tushman & O�Reilly, 1996) must maintain multiple, contradictory cognitive stylesand behaviors. This paradoxical leadership fluctuates the edge of a mechanisticand organic style of leadership, between structure and less structure (Lewin & Re-gine, 2000) and pursues a balance of yin and yang aspects of managing. Empiricalstudies show effective leaders are those who have the cognitive and behavioral capac-ity to recognize and react to paradox, contradictions and complexity in theirenvironments (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995). This leadership style allowsthe emergence and persistence of paradoxical organizing.

The larger organizational size becomes, the larger the role of information technol-ogy for paradoxical organizing becomes. The idea of enterprise systems or large scaleorganizational technologies has been attractive to many organizations today.


However, such enterprise technologies as ERP focus on one pole like integration,control and formalization while the other pole is largely neglected or underempha-sized. These are large and complex, rather than small and simple, structures. There-fore, they are likely to hinder paradoxical organizing, while the opposite outcomemay occur simultaneously.

KM technologies play the role of semi or minimal structures for paradoxical orga-nizing, particularly in large organizational settings. For that, technologies like semi-structures need to exhibit partial order, and they lie between the extremes of veryrigid and highly chaotic organization. Socio-technical systems theory suggests thatfor technologies to exhibit the characteristics of minimal structures, they should bedesigned according to a principle of minimal critical specification (Cherns, 1987).This principle states that ‘‘no more should be specified than is absolutely essential,and while it is necessary to be quite precise about what has to be done, it is rarelynecessary to be precise about how it is to be done (p.155)’’. This allows knowledgemanagement systems to be both designed and emergent in ‘‘technology-in-use’’ (Orli-kowski, Yates, Okamura, & Fujimoto, 1995) and ultimately supports paradoxicalorganizing. Boland, Tenkasi, and Teeni (1994) suggest that flexible electronic com-munication systems may support both knowledge integration and differentiationsimultaneously. This communication system combines two representation techniques– cognitive maps and narrative structures – for constructing and sharing knowledgeeffectively among different communities of practice.

4.3. Paradoxical belonging: paradoxes of belonging

Belonging is constituted byboth yin andyang. In the categoryof belongingparadox,closure, self-interest and competition may be said to represent the yin while openness,community-interest and cooperation the yang. When both are sought and balanced,this leads to the ideal state of belonging or the Taowhere yin and yang attract and com-plement each other under a constant change. Successful KM strategy requires organi-zations to focus simultaneously on both the yin and yang of belonging.

Related to belonging, two strategies for interorganizational relationships appearin the literature (Styles & Ambler, 2003). Transactional strategies draw on the frame-work of monopolistic competition and are short-term focused on profit maximiza-tion. This approach stresses the use of unique knowledge to exploit anopportunity and gain advantage. Protecting this knowledge is of utmost interest toa firm (Bloodgood & Salisbury, 2001). On the other hand, relational strategiesemphasize long-term mutually beneficial relationships between organizations andindustrial networks, interaction to develop and build these relationships and a focuson variables such as trust, cooperation, commitment and dependence. This approachis likely to seek the creation of new knowledge through interfirm actions in order toexploit opportunities. Disseminating this knowledge among participating firms is ofprimary interest to the firms involved (Badaracco, 2001).

Paradoxical belonging supposes the coexistence and complementarity of bothstrategies in interorganizational KM. Chae, Paradice, Koch, and Huy (2005) showthat the yin (e.g., self-interest, competition) and yang (e.g., community-interest,


cooperation) elements of belonging tend to be present simultaneously in knowledgesharing within an information technology group and even bigger communities oftechnology profession. They insist that these tensions persist in KM contexts andthus it becomes important for groups and organizations to utilize a KM strategyfor them. An organization that emphasizes both transactional and relational strate-gies is likely to perform better than an organization that adopts only one or neither(Styles & Ambler, 2003).

The mutual dependencies of the yin and yang of belonging appear to be evident aswell. Brown and Duguid (2000) point out the existence of two types of knowledgenetworks – intraorganizational and interorganizational. The former cannot existwithout the latter and vice versa: They are mutually dependent and there is a cyclicalflow of knowledge between the two. The studies by Holmqvist (2003) and Lyytinen,Rose, and Yoo (2002) capture this similar dialectical interplay between intra- andinterorganizational learning processes. These studies indicate that intra- and interor-ganizational do not merely coexist, but they reinforce each other. One cannot existwithout the other. In particular, Lyytinen et al. (2002) demonstrates that organiza-tions adopting this paradoxical learning performed better than others.

4.3.1. Organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical belonging

Certain organizational characteristics are critical for paradoxical belonging toemerge. Most of all, KM strategy needs a new mindset of organizational boundaryand the nature of competition. An ecological view that understands the complex,interdependent nature of organizations and knowledge flow among them is needed(Moore, 1996). From this view, Brown and Duguid (2000) note ‘‘The leaking of pro-prietary knowledge may represent a significant loss to the firm that loses it. If it flowsto where it will be more effectively used, the region as a whole, by contrast, gains.Moreover, the firm faced with such a loss may try to seal itself off from the systemas a whole. But such isolation can be quite damaging. Firms that feed into the ecol-ogy will, by networks of communities, feed off it. Closing off these routes isolates afirm in situations where isolation easily means death’’ (p. 27). They stress the impor-tance of taking an ecological view of belonging in KM contexts for the long-termsuccess of an organization, region, industry, etc. (see Table 3).

In addition to this new mindset by organizations, some specific mechanisms can bedeployed to facilitate paradoxical belonging. Lyytinen et al�s study of software firmsseems to offer some specific guidelines. They studied several successful software firms

Table 3Summary of organizational characteristics facilitating paradoxical belonging

� Organizations need to adopt an ecological view in their KM strategy– Organizations need to actively implement both intra- and inter-organizational learning while pursuing

both competition and cooperation– Certain learning mechanisms such as distributed gate-keeping and building peer expert networks

need to be employed� Information technologies are increasingly important for paradoxical belonging. Organizations shouldview technology-based COPs as complements to face-to-face COPs rather than substitutes


in competitive environments and found learning mechanisms with the companies thatexplore both intra- and interorganizational knowledge networks. They found twomechanisms – distributed gate-keeping and extended grafting of external knowledge –for rapid expansion of the breadth of organizational knowledge and two mechanisms– reuse of simple rules and design artifacts and building peer expert networks – forthe depth of organizational knowledge. These mechanisms rely on both internal andexternal knowledge sources and explore the combination of intra- and interorgani-zational learning. ‘‘Firms moved their technological and business expertise to thefront line through the decentralized and distributed organization of gatekeepers.These gatekeepers became the nexus of fast exploitation through their position inpeer networks. Extensive grafting enabled fast exploration through codified externalknowledge and skill sourcing. A shift toward using simple rules and design artifact-based exploitation enabled vicarious learning through trials and consecutiverefinement of cognitive frames that enabled fast exploitation. When combined withinformal knowledge transfer in peer networks, this resulted in more frictionless andagile mobilization of cognitive resources (p.21)’’. This study also indicates that thereis a constant, dialectic interlacing of the yin and yang of belonging.

Certain information technologies are necessary to support paradoxical belongingto emerge. Studies suggest that while communication technologies such as intranetdo not necessarily make a strong COP or cause intraorganizational learning tooccur, they are a complement to face-to-face COPs (Hara & Kling, 2002). However,the role of information and communication technologies such as interactiveelectronic feedback, newsgroup and Listserve is significant for interorganizationallearning. For example, studies show that ICTs play an important role in connectingpeople and maintaining interorganizational knowledge networks (Brown, 1998) andfacilitate interorganizational learning (Scott, 2000). ICTs ease the difficulties strang-ers have with contacting individuals across hierarchical, geographical, and organiza-tional boundaries (Constant, Sproull, & Kiesler, 1996).

5. Conclusion

This article proposes paradox as a novel framework for viewing and understand-ing KM phenomenon. Drawn from Western and Eastern views of opposites, wedeveloped a paradoxical view of KM in which the opposing forces in KM contextsare understood in terms of duality, mutual interdependence, continual change, andharmony and balance. Using this novel view, we then reviewed KM-related studiesand identified exemplary tensions and paradoxes in KM phenomenon. This reviewserved three purposes: (1) it organized and structured the jumble of topics in KMby analyzing critically the way the literature approaches those topics; (2) it illustratedthe implicitly unitary view or either/or thinking of KM by extant studies; and (3) itillustrated potential value of the paradoxical framework for fostering creative andcomplex insights into future inquiry of KM. From this, we proposed the paradoxicalview of learning, organizing and belonging as ways to embrace and even nurture KMtensions and paradoxes.


A number of implications for research and practice can be drawn from this study.In terms of research, extant unitary view and either/or thinking which researchersuse for analyzing KM phenomena and making suggestions to practitioners may beinappropriate. Instead, they should investigate KM phenomena with a paradoxicalview and consider simultaneous opposites in their research findings and discussions.This article presents a review of exemplary tensions and paradoxes in KM phenom-enon. Future research could extend this line of inquiry and identify other tensionsand paradoxes related to KM.

Paradox is a characteristic of effective (Cameron, 1986) and wise (Weick, 2001)organization. When suggestions are made to organizations and management, para-doxical approaches to various dimensions in KM strategy such as leadership, orga-nizational architecture, KM application and tool design and culture, to name a fewshould be promoted. Therefore, researchers in different academic fields are needed todevelop specific mechanisms to facilitate paradoxical learning, organizing andbelonging. For example, researchers in leadership can empirically investigate the ef-fect of paradoxical leadership on KM and ultimately organizational effectiveness andpropose more effective mechanisms of paradoxical leadership in KM contexts.Researchers in information technology/systems can develop KM systems based onthe paradoxical view proposed, and case study of the use of such systems at the orga-nization level can help the development of more effective system design and imple-mentation. When recognizing KM as a concept encompassing organizationalstructure, culture, leadership and information technology and others, interdisciplin-ary research in KM paradoxes is needed and offers the convergence necessary for thefurther advancement of KM theory.

In terms of practice, this study suggests that the world organizations and manag-ers confront today is increasingly paradoxical (Eisenhardt, 2000), and KM is notwithout exception. The traditional, unitary approaches that emphasize one poleare inappropriate. Organizations should recognize paradoxes in KM practice andput their time and effort on sustaining rather than resolving them, thus providingthe means to more fully evaluate important characteristics of paradoxical phenom-ena and to better illuminate the organizational processes that occur within the par-adox. This study suggests a number of organizational characteristics for paradoxicallearning, organizing and belonging. The list can never be exhaustive. According tothe paradoxical view proposed, individual organizations can develop more specificorganizational architecture, culture, leadership and technology to support paradox-ical learning, organizing and belonging. In implementing those organizational char-acteristics, it is important for organizations to implement them in the manner thatthey are mutually reinforcing. For instance, the introduction of overly formalizedKM systems as an initiative of KM, while implementing paradoxical leadershipand minimal structure, is likely to jeopardize the overall KM in the organization.In this sense, the congruence among diverse organizational characteristics is critical.

One focus of this manuscript was on identifying paradoxes of knowledge manage-ment within organizations. An additional consideration for evaluating and respond-ing to paradoxes within organizations is the issue of recognizing that multiple relatedparadoxes need to be dealt with simultaneously and in an integrated manner. This


topic was outside the scope of this paper, but it is nonetheless important and is anarea ripe for further research. At issue is the connectedness of many paradoxesand how this connectedness affects the manner in which organizations should dealwith them.

Additionally, there may be similarities of ways of dealing with certain paradoxesthat could be the basis for grouping them. Commonalities among these grouped par-adoxes could provide the foundation for a theoretical perspective that is useful forresearchers and managers in understanding and effectively dealing with paradox.Although the number of potential paradoxes within organizations is likely to be ex-tremely large, a theoretically-grounded approach for classifying and studying themcould help tremendously in enabling this avenue of research to progress. We heartilyrecommend that any interested researchers focus on this goal in order to provide thebasis for significant future contributions related to the study of paradox withinorganizations.

In conclusion, the contribution of this article is to propose a novel framework, toorganize the KM literature and to discuss organizational characteristics necessaryfor successful KM practice. We believe that this framework can advance KM theoryand practice. While empirical study is needed, we expect that the alternative view caninduce researchers to look at KM phenomena paradoxically and provide practitio-ners with a means of addressing the increasingly paradoxical world that theyconfront.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and the senior editor for the excel-lent reviews that have significantly improved the manuscript�s quality. The authorsalso thank Prof. Marianne Lewis and Prof. Marshall Scott Poole for valuable feed-back on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Alavi, M. (2000). Managing organizational knowledge. In R. Zumd (Ed.), Framing the domains of it

management: projecting the future through the past. New York: Pinnaflex.Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2002). Motivations and Barriers to Participation in Virtual

Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice. OKLC 2002, Athens, Greece.Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge

in organizations: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), 5–8.Argyris, C. (1977). Organizational learning and management information system. Accounting, Organi-

zations and Society, 2(2), 113–123.Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub Co.Badaracco, J. L. (2001). The knowledge link. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford.Bhaskar, R., & Norrie, A. (1998). Dialectic and dialectical critical realism. In M. S. Archer R. Bhaskar A.

Collier T. Lawson & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 561–574). London:Routledge.


Bloodgood, J. M., & Salisbury, W. D. (2001). Understanding the influence of organizational changestrategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies. Decision Support

Systems, 31, 55–69.Boland, R., Tenkasi, R., & Teeni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed

cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456–475.Boland, R., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of

knowing. Organization Science, 6(4).Borys, B., & Jemison, D. B. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: theoretical issues in

organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 234–249.Brews, P. J., & Hunt (1999). Learning to plan and planning to learn: resolving the planning school/

learning school debate. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 889–913.Brown, J. S. (1998). Internet technology in support of the concept of ‘‘communities of practice’’: the case

of xerox. Accounting, Management & Information Technology, 8, 227–236.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, C. P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational

Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, C. P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a

unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 40–57.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, C. P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School

Press, p. 320.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, C. P. (2001a). Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective.

Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.Brown, J. S., & Duguid, C. P. (2001b). Creativity versus structure: a useful tension. MIS Sloan

Management Review(Summer), 93–94.Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory

and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,1–34.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizationaleffectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn, R. E., &Cameron, K. S., (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and

management. (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA.Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product

development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.Chae, B., Paradice, D., Koch, H., & Huy, V. (2005). Exploring knowledge management using network

theories: questions, paradoxes and prospects. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(2), 1–15.Cheng, C. (1987). Chinese philosophy and contemporary human communication theory. In D. Lawrence

(Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives (pp. 23–40). San Diego: AcademicPress.

Cheng, Y.-T., & Van de Ven, A. (1996). Learning the innovation journey: order out of chaos. Organization

Science, 7(6), 593–614.Cherns, A. E. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Human Relations, 40, 153–162.Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J., & Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: a relational view.Human Relations,

55(5), 483–503.Cohen, S. S., & Fields, G. (1999). Social capital and capital gains in silicon valley. California Management

Review, 41(2), 108–130.Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of electronic weak

ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.Courtney, J. F. (2001). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: a new

decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 17–38.Davenport, S., & Prusak, L. (1998).Working knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: toward a theory of

behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540.Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization

Science, 3(2), 179–202.


Edelman, L. F., & Benning, A. L. (1999). Incremental revolution: organizational change in highlyturbulent environments. Organizational Development Journal, 17(4), 79–93.

Eisenhardt, K. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: the new language of change and pluralism. Academy

of Management Review, 25(4), 703–705.Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. (2002). Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy?. In A. Pettigrew

H. Thomas & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 139–164). LondonUK: Sage Publication.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78–91.Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley, CA: University

of California Press.Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: organization capability as

knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7, 375–387.Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,

109–122.Gray, P. H., & Meister, D. B. (2003). Introduction: fragmentation and integration in knowledge

management research. Information Technology & People, 16(3), 259–265.Grindley, P., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in

semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a

research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5–21.Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1999). No business is an island: the network concept of business strategy.

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3), 187–200.Hansen, M. (1999). The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across

organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What�s your strategy for managing knowledge?. Harvard

Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.Hara, N., & Kling, R. (2002). IT Support for Communities of Practice: An Empirically-based Framework.

WP-02-02, Center for Social Informatics, Indiana University..He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis.

Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.Hine, M., & Goul, M. (1998). The design, development, and validation of a knowledge-based

organizational learning support system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(2), 119–152.Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies,

24(1), 95–123.Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization

Science, 2, 88–115.Huysman, M. (2000). Rethinking organizational learning: analyzing learning processes of information

systems designers. Information and Organization, 10, 81–99.Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge

management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M. (2001). Minimal structures: from jazz improvisation to product innovation.

Organization Studies, 22(5), 733–764.Kim, H. C. P. (2001). Interpretative modes of Yin-Yang dynamics as an asian hermeneutics. Biblical

Interpretation, 9(3), 287–308.Knott, A. M. (2002). Exploration and exploitation as complements. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.),

The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge (pp. 339–358). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.

Legge, J. (1959). The texts of taoism. New York: The Juian Press.Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 126–146.Lewin, R., & Regine, B. (2000). The soul at work. New York: Simon & Schuster.


Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management

Review, 25(4), 760–776.Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,

17(Winter), 93–107.Lyytinen, K., Rose, G., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Learning in High Gear Hyper-learning and Dynamic Capability

in Seven Software Firms. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems andOrganizations 2(Fall), pp. 1–35.

Malhotra, Y. (2002). Information ecology and knowledge management: toward knowledge ecology forhyperturbulent organizational environmentEncyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Oxford,UK: UNESCO/Eolss Publishers.

Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail? Enablers and constraints of knowledgemanagement in human enterprises. In M. E. Koenig & T. K. Srikantaiah (Eds.), Knowledge

management lessons learned: What works and what doesn�t (pp. 87–112). Information Today Inc.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1),

71–87.Mertins, K., Heisig, P., & Vorbeck, J. (2001). Knowledge management: Best practices in Europe. Springer-

Verlag.Miller, D. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 116–138.Mintzberg, H. (2001). The Yin and the Yang of managing. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 306–312.Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management

Journal, 6(3), 257–272.Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., & Walton, E. A. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational

transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press,

p. 284.Okhuysen, G. A. (2001). Structuring change: familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving

groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 794–808.O�Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review,

1(April), 74–81.Orlikowski, W., Yates, J., Okamura, K., & Fujimoto, M. (1995). Shaping electronic communication: the

metastructuring of technology in the context of use. Organization Science, 6(4), 423–444.Robertson, M., & Swan, J. (2003). Control – What control? Culture and ambiguity within a knowledge

intensive firm. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 831–858.Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice. California Management

Review, 40(3), 80–89.Schultz, U., & Leidner, D. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research:

discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 213–242.Scott, J. E. (2000). Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 17(2), 81–113.Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization Century

Business.Starbuck, W. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6),

713–740.Stein, E. W. (1995). Organizational memory: review of concepts and recommendations for management.

International Journal of Information Management, 15(1), 17–32.Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems.

Information Systems Research, 6(2), 85–117.Styles, C., & Ambler, T. (2003). The coexistence of transaction and relational marketing: insights from the

chinese business context. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 633–642.Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported

Cooperative Work, 2, 21–39.Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Academy

of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.


Tushman, M., & O�Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary andrevolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of change. In Quinn, R. E.,& Cameron, K. S., (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and

management. (pp. 19–64). Cambridge, MA.Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Walsh, J. P. a. U., & Gerardo, Rivera (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review,

16, 57–91.Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic

communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 155–173.Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.Weick, K. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.),

Organizational challenge and redesign. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Weick, K. (2001). The attitude of wisdom: ambivalence as the optimal compromise. In Weick, K. (Eds.),

Making Sense of the Organization. pp. 361–379..Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.Whittington, R. (1988). Environmental structure and theories of strategic choice. Journal of Management

Studies, 25(6), 521–536.Yuan, R. (1997). Yin/Yang principle and the relevance of externalism and paralogic rhetoric to

intercultural communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(3), 297–320.Zack, M. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review(Summer), 45–58.Zmud, B. (2002). Special issue on redefining the organizational roles of information technology in the

information age. MIS Quarterly, 26(3).

the paradoxes of knowledge management: an eastern philosophical perspective

Documents