H:\MISQ\March 2005\Waskofaraj.Wpd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wasko & Faraj/Social Capital & Knowledge Contribution SPECIAL ISSUE WHY SHOULD I SHARE? EXAMINING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND KNOWLEDGE CONTRIBUTION IN ELECTRONIC NETWORKS OF PRACTICE1 By: Molly McLure Wasko butor, and free-riders are able to acquire the same Department of Management Information knowledge as everyone else. To understand this Systems paradox, we apply theories of collective action to Florida State University examine how individual motivations and social Tallahassee, FL 32306 capital influence knowledge contribution in elect- U.S.A. ronic networks. This study reports on the activities [email protected] of one electronic network supporting a professional legal association. Using archival, network, survey, Samer Faraj and content analysis data, we empirically test a Department of Decision and Information model of knowledge contribution. We find that Technologies people contribute their knowledge when they per- R. H. Smith School of Business ceive that it enhances their professional repu- University of Maryland tations, when they have the experience to share, College Park, MD 20742 and when they are structurally embedded in the U.S.A. network. Surprisingly, contributions occur without [email protected] regard to expectations of reciprocity from others or high levels of commitment to the network. Abstract Keywords: Electronic networks of practice, knowledge management, online communities, Electronic networks of practice are computer- social capital mediated discussion forums focused on problems of practice that enable individuals to exchange advice and ideas with others based on common interests. However, why individuals help strangers Introduction in these electronic networks is not well under- stood: there is no immediate benefit to the contri- Knowledge has long been recognized as a valuable resource for organizational growth and sustained competitive advantage, especially for organizations competing in uncertain environments 1V. Sambamurthy and Mani Subramani were the accepting senior editors for this paper. (Miller and Shamsie 1996). Recently, some MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57/March 2005 35 Wasko & Faraj/Social Capital & Knowledge Contribution researchers have argued that knowledge is an and Leidner 1999; Orlikowski 1996). One of the organization’s most valuable resource because it problems with accessing knowledge from acquain- represents intangible assets, operational routines, tances and unknown others is that it requires and creative processes that are hard to imitate depending upon the “kindness of strangers” (Grant 1996; Liebeskind 1996). However, most (Constant et al. 1996). Despite the growing organizations do not possess all required knowl- interest in online cooperation and virtual orga- edge within their formal boundaries and must rely nizing, there is surprisingly little empirical research on linkages to outside organizations and individ- into the communication and organization pro- uals to acquire knowledge (Anand et al. 2002). In cesses of electronic networks, and how partici- dynamic fields, organizational innovation derives pation in these networks relates to sharing from knowledge exchange and learning from knowledge (Lin 2001; Monge et al. 1998). The network connections that cross organizational goal of our research is to better understand boundaries (Nooteboom 2000). Organizational knowledge flows by examining why people members benefit from external network connec- voluntarily contribute knowledge and help others tions because they gain access to new infor- through electronic networks. mation, expertise, and ideas not available locally, and can interact informally, free from the con- This paper is organized as follows. First, we straints of hierarchy and local rules. Even though introduce the concept of an electronic network of the employing organizations may be direct com- practice and discuss the key issues for under- petitors, informal and reciprocal knowledge standing knowledge contribution in these networks. exchanges between individuals are valued and Then, we apply theories of social capital to sustained over time because the sharing of knowl- develop a model for examining how individual edge is an important aspect of being a member of motivations and social capital foster knowledge a technological community (Bouty 2000). contribution. We test this model empirically through survey and objective data collected from One way to create linkages to external knowledge one electronic network of practice focused on the resources is through electronic communication exchange of legal advice between lawyers. networks. Electronic networks make it possible to Finally, we discuss how our empirical findings share information quickly, globally, and with large contribute to theory development and improve our numbers of individuals. Electronic networks that understanding of how information technologies focus on knowledge exchange frequently emerge support cross-organization knowledge exchange. in fields where the pace of technological change requires access to knowledge unavailable within any single organization (Powell et al. 1996). Elec- tronic networks have been found to support Knowledge Contribution organizational knowledge flows between geo- graphically dispersed coworkers (Constant et al. in Electronic Networks 1996) and distributed research and development of Practice efforts (Ahuja et al. 2003). These networks also assist cooperative open-source software develop- Brown and Duguid (2001) suggest that knowledge ment (Raymond 1999; von Hippel and von Krogh flows are best understood by examining how work 2003) and open congregation on the Internet for is actually performed and thinking about knowl- individuals interested in a specific practice (Butler edge and learning as an outcome of actual 2001; Wasko and Faraj 2000). engagement in practice. When individuals have a common practice, knowledge readily flows across However, as management in many organizations that practice, enabling individuals to create social has discovered, the availability of electronic com- networks to support knowledge exchange (Brown munication technologies is no guarantee that and Duguid 2000). Brown and Duguid suggest knowledge sharing will actually take place (Alavi that there are two practice-related social networks 36 MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 1/March 2005 Wasko & Faraj/Social Capital & Knowledge Contribution that are essential for understanding learning, work, of technology on communications, which may and the movement of knowledge: communities of result in different dynamics (DeSanctis and Monge practice and networks of practice. These re- 1999). More formally, we define an electronic searchers conclude that the key to competitive network of practice as a self-organizing, open advantage is a firm’s ability to coordinate auton- activity system focused on a shared practice that omous communities of practice internally and exists primarily through computer-mediated leverage the knowledge that flows into these communication. communities from network connections (Brown and Duguid 2000, 2001). This definition highlights some key aspects of an electronic network of practice. First, the network is A community of practice consists of a tightly knit generally self-organizing in that it is made up of group of members engaged in a shared practice individuals who voluntarily choose to participate. who know each other and work together, typically Second, the term open activity denotes that meet face-to-face, and continually negotiate, com- participation is open to individuals interested in the municate, and coordinate with each other directly. shared practice, and who are willing to mutually In a community of practice, joint sense-making and engage with others to help solve problems com- problem solving enhances the formation of strong mon to the practice. While many electronic net- interpersonal ties and creates norms of direct works of practice reside outside organizations reciprocity within a small community (Lave 1991; (e.g., on the Usenet or the Web), our definition Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). In con- includes networks that are sponsored by a specific trast, networks of practice consist of a larger, organization or professional association as long as loosely knit, geographically distributed group of they exist primarily through computer-mediated individuals engaged in a shared practice, but who communication. may not know each other nor necessarily expect to meet face-to-face (Brown and Duguid 2001). However, because participation is open and Networks of practice often coordinate through third voluntary, participants are typically strangers. parties such as professional associations, or Knowledge seekers have no control over who exchange knowledge through conferences and responds to their questions or the quality of the publications such as specialized newsletters. responses. Knowledge contributors have no Although individuals connected through a network assurances that those they are helping will ever of practice may never know or meet each other return the favor, and lurkers may draw upon the face to face, they are capable of sharing a great knowledge of others without contributing anything deal of knowledge (Brown and Duguid 2000). in return. This sharply contrasts with traditional communities of practice and face-to-face knowl- With recent advances in computer mediated edge exchanges where people typically know one communications, networks of practice are able to another and interact over time, creating