Knowledge and Process Management Volume 20 Number 1 pp 1220 (2013) Published online in Wiley Online Library (www.wileyonlinelibrary.

com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1402

Research Article

The Passion for Knowledge: implications for its Transfer

Laurent Si1 and Ali Yakhlef2*
1 2

cole Suprieure de Commerce de Pau, Pau, France Stockholm University School of Business, Business Administration, Stockholm, Sweden

Research into knowledge sharing has mainly treated knowledge from an instrumental, market-driven perspective. On this view, research has focused on the psychological (e.g. motivation), cognitive (e.g. absorptive capacity) and social features (e.g. weak/strong ties) of the knowledge entities, the structural (formal or informal) characteristics of the organizational context and the nature of knowledge to be transferred (such as its stickiness and causal complexity). The present study seeks to suggest passion as a contingency that impacts the knowledge transfer process positively. Passion for knowledge may constitute a social bond that holds a community together. Passionate members are inclined to share their object of passionknowledgemore readily. Our argument is based on information elicited from a number of scientic experts within the petrol industry. In their daily work, experts regard the transfer of knowledge as sine qua non of becoming expert, as interactions with others are (i) learning opportunities for themselves and (ii) as social occasions to relate to their peers and on to talk about and share stories about the object to their passion (knowledge). The contribution of the paper is thus to suggest emotional aspects (passion, attachment and interest) related to knowledge as a factor that impacts the transfer of knowledge. Finally, conclusions and implications are discussed. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION
Although the importance of knowledge sharing is widely recognized by theorists and practitioners, the process of transferring it from one individual to another still remains a challenge for the majority of organizations (Szulanski, 1996; Burgess, 2005; Hurt and Hurt, 2005; Wang and Noe 2010). Prior research has highlighted several facilitators and inhibitors in the context of knowledge sharing, identifying, in particular, a number of individual, motivational, interpersonal, cultural, organizational characteristics that have an impact on knowledge sharing outcomes (Constant et al., 1994; Szulanski 1996; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001; Judge and Bono, 2001; Cabrera et al., 2006; Lin 2007a). Most of the identied motives to participate in knowledge sharing tend to favour rationally oriented or cognitive accounts, whereas emotional and affective aspects are typically excluded. Most accounts are thus couched in instrumental, interest-driven terms, such as the pursuit of rewards, power or social status. Such instrumental explanations, which tend to
*Correspondence to: Ali Yakhlef, Stockholm University School of Business, Business Administration, Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: aya@fek.su.se

promote rational understandings of knowledge-related behaviours, ignore the tacit, emotional and sensorial intelligence of feeling (Witkin 1974). For instance, in contrast to the dominant view of science as an objective, value-free endeavour, Polanyi (1966) has emphasized the role of scholars passionate pursuit of knowledge as a driving force behind scientic advance (Gertler 2003; Gherardi et al., 2007; Landri; 2007). Several thinkers have recently argued that passion is a prerequisite for successful voluntary engagement in knowledge work, rather than conning it to such specic spheres as those of art or leisure (Knorr Cetina and Bruegger 2000; Gherardi et al., 2007; Landri 2007). Passion is a bond that links us to what we do as well as a way of relating and communicating with those who have the same passion as ourselves (Gherardi et al., 2007). Consequently, although knowledge sharing involves experiences that are replete with passion, such passion has not been considered as a crucial factor in the context of knowledge sharing. It is thus the aim of the present study to explore the possibility of considering passion as a facilitator of knowledge sharing. Focusing on a group of experts within a large petrol company, we examine how passion affects these experts willingness to share their hard-won expertise knowledge with newly recruited engineers. Because becoming an expert

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Knowledge Sharing requires a long-term commitment to ones area of expertise and years of experience in that specic area, it is likely that experts are passionate about their area of expertise, and because passion is the bond that holds together a community of experts, these experts are likely to willingly talk about and share their passion with other members. Thus, passion can be regarded not only the link between an individual and his or her knowledge behaviour but also the bond that links a community of practitioners to one another and to their object of passion (knowledge). Among the implications of the present view is that if passion is a precondition for leaning and sharing knowledge, then the process of acquiring knowledge is also the process of sharing it with the community that is linked by that passion. This view has several implications for the theory and practice of knowledge acquisition and sharing. The remaining of the paper will unfold as follows. In the next section (Knowledge Sharing section), we will provide a literature review of the relevant research, making the case for passion as a facilitator of knowledge sharing, emphasizing the need to enrich our understanding of the process of sharing knowledge by taking into account the role of passion. In the third section, we discuss the method deployed and present the material used to illustrate and substantiate our argument. The fourth section is devoted to the analysis and discussions of the material, on the basis of the model suggested for this study. Finally, conclusions and implications are discussed in the closing section.

13

KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Researchers have identied several factors that impact knowledge sharing processes, ranging from organizational, social, individual and motivational factors. Management support for knowledge sharing has been found to be positively associated with employees perceptions of the extent to which a knowledge sharing culture is present in the organization, employees willingness to share knowledge (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Cabrera et al., 2006; Kulkarni et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2006; Lin, 2007b) and employees commitment to knowledge management initiatives (Lee et al., 2006). Similarly, it has been found that a functionally structured organization tends to inhibit knowledge sharing across functions and communities of practice (Lam, 1996; Tagliaventi and Mattarelli, 2006). In contrast, less centralized, forms of organizing may be better context for knowledge sharing (Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Kim and Lee, 2006). Researchers have also investigated ways in which the social relationship between the knowledge entities affects the knowledge sharing process (Szulanski 1996; Eisenhardt and Santos 2002; Husted and Michailova 2002). In particular, relations of Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

trust (Levin and Cross, 2004) and the strength of ties (Hansen, 1999) between knowledge entities (ThomasHunt et al., 2003) are argued to impact the knowledge transfer outcome. On this view, individuals evaluate the perceived ratio of benets to costs and base their action decisions on the expectation that it will lead to rewards such as respect, reputation and tangible incentives (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1981). However, research into the impact of personal interest and motivation on knowledge sharing is not consistent (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Burgess, 2005; Michailova and Hutchings 2006, Quigley et al., 2007). This is likely because motivation has been agged as a complex issue by an increasing number of researchers (Deci, 1975; Dermer, 1975; Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Osterloh et al., 2002; Osterloh 2007). Researchers distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation each of which is associated with different incentives. Motivation is intrinsic if an activity is undertaken for ones immediate need satisfaction (Osterloh and Frey 2000:539). The activity is valued for its own sake and appears to be self-sustained (Deci 1975: 105, quoted in Osterloh et al. 2002: 64). Because intrinsic motivation represents an individuals personal interest and passion for what they know, it is understood to be an end in itself, for it is fostered by commitment to the work itself, which must be both satisfactory and fullling to the individual (Dermer, 1975). In contrast, extrinsic motivation arises when we have a situation where motivation derives from means not ends. In this case, indirect needs are satised, such as increased responsibility, advancement, better supervisory relations, better peer relations, increased pay or job security (Dermer, 1975; Osterloh 2007). The notion of intrinsic motivation tends to draw our attention to the (emotional) relation between knowledge work and the person who carried it out. If we are able to identify what individuals are passionate about, then we may be able to nesse questions about motivation by assigning them the appropriate type of work. For instance, as Cabrera et al (2006) maintain, individuals who are interested in experiencing new things tend to be highly curious about knowing about others ideas and insights. A common interest or a passion around a common object of knowledge will constitute a bond among a group of practitioners, an urge for practitioners to relate and communicate with those who have the same passion as ourselves by sharing stories, memories and a state of mind (Gherardi et al., 2007: 322). This is what explains why employees with a higher level of education and longer related work experience are more positive to sharing their expertise, as noted by Constant et al (1994). Becoming an expert is a lengthy and painstaking process, which cannot be achieved without emotional investment, interest and passion. Much of the research into expertise and intrinsic motivation seems to draw our attention to passion as a signicant factor Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

14

L. Si and A. Yakhlef ease learning and tacit knowledge transfer among members. In like manner, in the present study, we regard this mutual engagement as more engaging than has been the case in previous literature; thus, members passionate, mutual engagement is the ties that connect them together as a social entity. Passionate, mutual engagement is the source of meaning creation and mode of belonging to this community. It is the passion for the knowledge related to a particular community that insures the continued sustenance of that community over time and also the domain of knowledge underlying that community. In this way, the passion for the object of knowing develops through participation in the conversations that create and maintain the community as long as members share that passion, and as long as they keep talking about it and sharing it. Furthermore, passion involves a form of devotion, an attachment to an object of activity for its own sake (Weber, 1919). Passion for knowledge highlights how, within an epistemic community, the drive to produce knowledge is determined by a neveraccomplished-desire for knowledge. According to Gherardi et al (2007), occupational and professional groups or communities, sharing a common knowledge and practice, also display a passion, a feeling that is an aesthetic and emotional understanding. The scholar underlines that the passion about what one does, and about doing it well, is a sentiment that pertains to a community of practitioners and anchors its identity (Gherardi, 2006: 18283). As noted previously, the community of practice recognizes the important mutual engagement, along side the other aspects, such as shared norms, rules, joint enterprise and a linguistic repertoire (Wenger et al., 2002). But it can be pointed that passion involves more emotional involvement on the part of the participants and the other components constituting a community of practice require strong motives, or passion, for their emergence and sustenance. Thus, from these considerations, we derive two assumptions that we wish to further explore empirically. The rst one is that passion for knowledge is socially shared among members of a community of oil experts. The second one is that passionate people are keen on talking, communicating and sharing the object of their passion with others in a spontaneous and natural way.

in knowledge initiatives that deserves more attention than has been the case in extant literature. Limited would be our understanding of how knowledge is created and shared if we only rely on a purely instrumental and economic view of human activities. There are many respects in which people do what they do for the love of what they do and not for money (Gherardi et al., 2007: 315) or for similar extrinsic motives (Osterloh and Frey, 2000).

Passion and knowledge sharing Although work experiences are saturated with emotion (Fineman, 2003), this characteristic has received relatively little attention in the research literature, particularly in connection with respect to its relation to organizational knowledge and learning (for exceptions, refer to Gabriel and Grifths, 2002; Sturdy, 2003). However, in recent years, some researchers have begun to call attention to passion as a primary explanatory cause of social, organizational behaviour (Knorr Cetina and Bruegger 2000; Gherardi et al. 2007). For these researchers, passion is a prerequisite for a successful voluntary engagement in knowledge work. Therefore, passion can be understood as a form of emotion (Barbalet, 1996; Landri 2007) and a compelling urge to achieve something. From this approach, work and passion can be regarded as compatible, given that passion is inherent in almost all human activities, not just conned to aesthetic activities related to such specic spheres as those of art or leisure (Schawlbe, 1986; in Gherardi et al., 2007). Etymologically, the meaning of the word passion means a sense of pain and suffering or destruction (Gherardi et al., 2007). Linstead and Brewis (2007: 355) use the general term orexis to indicate the natural human desire to know, the passion to know and discoveran urge that causes humans to reach out for something or someone. For instance, in his study of the mathematicians of the Naples school, Landri (2007) shows how passion for the object of knowledge, mathematics in this case, was a force that created a community, a culture and identity. The author addresses the question of the intertwining of passion and mathematic, scientic work. The scientists passion for mathematics has created a collective attachment to the subjects and objects of mathematics as a body of knowledge. Hence, passion is not an individual emotion, but rather socially shared emotion among members of a community. Practitioners engaged in an activity that is meaningful for them and end up by developing a common identity and a trust-based relationshipa community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). The community of practice literature emphasizes the importance of what is called mutual engagement (Wenger 1998). Mutual engagement refers to the tendency of members to establish common norms and build collaborative relationships, which Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

METHOD AND MATERIAL

Given the explorative nature of this paper, we chose a qualitative, case study approach, comprising theoretical reections, as well as empirical evidence derived from a case study. A case study is a research methodology, which focuses on understanding the dynamics within single settings (Eisenhardt 1989). Case studies can be used for many purposes, such as providing description, testing or generating theory. The aim of the Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge Sharing present case is to explore/test whether passion can impact the process of knowledge sharing within a community of scientic experts. Given our focus on the potential relationship between passion and knowledge sharing, the selection of the case is opportunistic rather than random. Rather than be used and assessed as a basis for generalization, non-random case studies may be thought of as mostly a preliminary stage of an investigation to generate hypotheses. In spite of this, researchers, mainly working from an interpretive perspective would argue that an interest in generalization stems from a belief that abstract, theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical, case-based knowledge. Therefore, it is claimed that it is possible to generalize on the basis of a single case and that case study methodology is a central step in scientic development (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 425). The reason is that people can learn much that is general even from a single case. Individuals are familiar with other cases through personal engagement or vicarious experience, and as they add new cases, by making a somewhat expanded set of studies from which to generalize, there is a new opportunity to strengthen, modify or reject old generalizations (Patton and Appelbaum 2003). Yin (2003), for instance, adds that the goal of a case study can expand and generalize theories (analytic generalization) but not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization). Consistent with case study methodology orientation, the present study does not seek statistical generalization, but analytic generalization and theory expansion, opening a discussion on the potential utility of the concept of passion in the context of knowledge initiatives, such as knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

15

A case illustration As noted earlier, our empirical site involves an international oil company, (pseudonymously) referred to as Oil Explore. With operations in more than 130 countries, Oil Explore engages in all aspects of the petroleum industry, including upstream operations (oil and gas exploration, development and production, LNG) and downstream operations (rening, marketing and the trading and shipping of crude oil and petroleum products). The company also produces base chemicals (petrochemicals and fertilizers) and specialty chemicals for the industrial and consumer markets (rubber processing, adhesives, resins and electroplating). In addition, the company has interests in the coal mining and power generation sectors. It is also developing renewable energies, such as wind and solar power and alternative fuels. One of the competitive advantages of the company derives from the ability of its geoscientists to discover new reserves in an efcient manner as possible. Consequently, the company is very dependent on the long-term knowledge of its experts; that is the tacit knowledge that is internally Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

accumulated through years of experience. The life cycle of this expertise is fairly stable over a time span of about 30 years or even more. Within the strategic geosciences division, which is the focus of the present study, geophysicists, geologists and reservoirs engineers are regarded as knowledge workers. Their work can be described in the following way: geophysicists derive and interpret underground images of the earth. Geologists analyse how the petroleum system is formed and the features of the underground. The reservoir engineers determine the dynamic properties of the reservoir to predict the behaviour of a petroleum eld, to optimize its production and to compute its reserves. If a wrong decision is made, such as drilling a well that proves unproductive, the company will incur very large nancial losses, about several millions of Euros. Given the high stakes involved in these decisionsdecisions that can only be processed by expertise knowledgesharing knowledge with peers and new recruits is a central issue in the company. Add to this the fact that most of those scientic experts will retire within the next 10 years. Their average age is over 50. In this eld, expertise is acquired through decades of practice and learning by doing. In the face of the imminent mass retirement, the company is undertaking a number of training programs. Training does not solve the whole problem given that the knowledge in question is tacit and thus cannot be transferred to newly recruited novices overnight. To these ends, the geoscience division organizes work processes in project-based and cross-age teams. In their concerted efforts to transfer knowledge to newly-minted engineers and scientists, experts are taking a leading role, assuming the responsibility for teaching, transferring their expertise and guiding the novices. Our focus is thus on a number of these experts in order to determine what encourages or discourages them to share their knowledge with newly-recruited engineers. The empirical material has been elicited from 28 geo-scientists interviewees working at the companys geosciences division. We interviewed the following: ve experts with more than 20 years of experience; two experts who are retired but still working on research projects; eight specialists (senior researchers, future experts, more than 15 years of experience); three technical managers who manage technical teams of experts and specialists 10 less experienced scientists with less than 5 years of experiences, who interact with experts. The informants were of 12 different nationalities: Algerian, Angolan, Dutch, English, French, Iranian, Israeli, Lebanese, Nigerian, Norwegian, Russian and Spanish. Interview time ranged from 50 to 120 minutes: average time was 70 minutes. During these interactions with the experts and specialists, we focused our questions concerning how they Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

16

L. Si and A. Yakhlef Thus, expertise seems to be related to the emotional commitment experts invest in their knowledge. They regard enthusiasm, curiosity and passion as intrinsically bounded elements of expertise. Becoming an expert is a lengthy and painstaking process, which cannot be achieved without an emotional investment and passion.

dene and relate to their eld of expertise and what motivates them to readily and willingly transfer their expertise to younger generation. To learn more about the perspectives of the novices and technical managers, our questions to them revolved around how they experienced the transfer process and what, according to them, are the requirements for an effective knowledge transfer process. To protect the identity of the interviewees, we have used ctive names.

The social, relational nature of passion Passion and expertise One of the themes that emerged from the bulk of information elicited from the experts we interviewed is their attachment to their eld of expertise. They consider their work as inherently interesting. They emphasized the importance of curiosity and passion for exploration as prerequisites for carrying out their tasks. Nicholas summarizes his understanding of what he is doing: when you are an expert, in general it is because you invested many years into your work, and because you are curious about learning new things the whole time. To become an expert, curiosity is necessary because it enables you to develop an inquisitive and investigative mind. But without passion as a drive to satisfy your curiosity you can come very far! Adam, another expert we have interviewed, describes why he chose to be a geo-scientist in the following way: I had this sweet taste for discovery and exploration: I have always wanted to nd the solutions that others cannot . . . I just like discovering new things. When asked the nature of job satisfaction for him, Vincent dened it in terms of satisfaction of his curiosity to learn: I take pleasure in learning in order to satisfy my curiosity; if I cannot satisfy my curiosity to learn I am not happy with doing my job. John who is a geo-statistician said that passion for and curiosity about knowing new things are inner drives that sustain [his] thirst for learning. Kadder added that when I was a kid I liked to disassemble my toys because I was so curious about what was inside them and how they worked . . .this is why I became an engineer . John said more or less the same thing: my wife is often complaining that I cannot take my mind off my work, because even when we are on holiday, such as when climbing a mountain, I would stop and examine the stones and rocks that look unfamiliar to me. For Patrick, a former geophysical research manager, the ideal expert has more than curiosity. S/he also needs to be passionate about the objects of their knowledge. Because this form of knowledge can only be learned by doing, and through many years, one needs curiosity, enthusiasm, passion and humour . John added that a true geologist has a certain relation, a physical, but not a sexual one, with stones: s/he would touch them, feel them, smell them and sometimes lick them in order to come closer to them. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. What emerged from our interviews with the experts was that the relation of these experts to their eld of knowledge is articulated in emotional terms. However, such emotional dispositions are not only individual but also social in that they are shared and nurtured in a social context. What they share in common is their passion for their domain of expertise. David, a specialist in uncertainty assessment says that to have expertise without transferring it is nonsense. Because expertise is an appellation bestowed on experts by others, it can only manifest itself in social acts of sharing and helping others solve concrete problems. Absent the sharing and transferring of his or her knowledge, an expert may not be recognized as such by others. For an expert is considered an expert based on the extent to which she or he is open to the others. When we asked the experts about what motivates them to share their expertise and how they viewed the process of transferring it to younger colleagues, we were surprised to learn that for them transferring knowledge is a process of learning, or rather, of co-learning. For Nicholas, there was no distinction between knowledge transfer and knowledge creation: You are neither a source only, nor just a recipient, you are both, that is, a knowledge creator. (. . .) when you are discussing with somebody you are engaged more in a process of knowledge creation rather than just in a transfer process (. . .) You cannot learn alone, it makes no sense. You need to share your passion with those who are passionate about the same thing as you. Maria seconded that view: when you work with someone else, you always learn something. John maintained that when learners are curious and highly motivated we feel that our efforts are meaningful and thus more motivated to work with them. For this reason, they all claimed that knowledge transfer requires curiosity, enthusiasm and passion. As proposed by Maria, curiosity and passion have an impact not only on the acquisition of knowledge but also on its sharing: What motivates an expert is this permanent thirst for learning, this willingness to learn but also to share. Adam added that If you are curious, if you like to discover, to share your knowledge with others you are able to discover new knowledge. In other words, they described the process of transferring their knowledge as being in concert with the processes that dened its learning. As noted by Bjrn, being an expert is a constant search for the unknown, you are compelled to learn new Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge Sharing things every day, and since being an expert means that you spend most of your time interacting with others, you are bound to learn from these exchanges. The practice of being an expert implies working with others who share the same interest as you, and it is from those practices that experts learn. To the extent that experts learn while interacting and exchanging ideas with others, their passion to learn is their passion to transfer their knowledge. For Justin, you need enthusiasm to touch people where they are sensitive, (. . .) it goes beyond rationality, it is not related to cognition, although it deals sometimes with how certain technologies function. In sum, the majority of the interviewees emphasized the signicance of emotional drives (curiosity, enthusiasm and passion) as motives to learn/share their expertise. Enthusiasm and passion are not only individual features but also they are practiced and shared among members of a community. They are manifested during interactions among individuals sharing a common interest. Thus, sharing this interest and passion is the social aspect of expertise.

17

Sustaining and reproducing the passion for expertise Social esteem, such as the feeling of being recognized by peers, emerged as pertinent, as it refers to the degree to which an expert feels admired, supported and appreciated by their peers. Social esteem enables an individual to develop a sense of worth (self-esteem), a feeling of being competent. According to Frederich: I personally feel that public acknowledgement is a strong motivator for an expert like me . . . I get a feeling of satisfaction when I see that people recognize my competence in these conferences and that they really listen to what I have got to say. Frederich also stated that Doing your job well is a fundamental issue of expertise. This links expertise to the feeling of belonging to a community I previously talked about. The feeling of contributing to the collective performance is a very strong motivator to transfer knowledge (Frederich). Finally, John who is about to retire, put it in the following way: The fact that I am not going to stay here for long, and because I am not going to need my expertise anymore, it is crucial for me to see it live on after I am gone. It is of no use to me anymore, and for this reason I give it [back] to my company . . . It is because my expertise doesnt belong to me, I have been lucky to have had the opportunity to acquire it, through years of experience at this company, and it would be painful to see it disappear after I retire. Failing to transmit what I know to the next generation would be clear evidence that I did not do my job properly. Adam said that I consider sharing our expertise fundamental to the sustenance and survival of our profession; and if we fail to do so, we would not Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

measure up to our profession. In a sense, by transferring their knowledge, experts believe that they expand the eld of their expertise to other individuals. Adam further said that the fact that I am not going to stay here for long, I want to see my expertise transferred back to my company, I do not want it to go to waste. I want to pass it over to other generations who can sustain it and develop it. The worst scenario I can imagine is to see it wither away after I leave this company. Nicholas elaborates: when a departing expert transfers his knowledge, he takes part, at a small or big scale, in the process of enriching his eld of expertise (Nicholas). Frederich sees this feeling of contributing to this stock of collective knowledge as ones duty, this is a very strong motivator for transferring my knowledge (Frederich). Not only is an eventual failure regarded as a personal failure (affecting their self-esteem) but also as a failure towards the community as a whole (impacting their social esteem); the experts feel that it is their duty (toward the community) to keep the object of their passion alive. In many of these statements made by our interviewees, we have noticed that the experts are so attached to their domain knowledge that they see it as a nightmare if it disappears after their retirement. This strong attachment seems to explain their intent on sharing it with younger generation.

DISCUSSIONS
The descriptive evidence presented in the previous section tends to suggest that there is a strong relationship among passion, knowledge and the chances of sharing it with others. Passionate experts work mainly on various projects, where sharing knowledge is the basis for teamwork. For instance, when an operational geoscientist has a measurement problem that he or she discusses with an expert, this problem is one further case for the expert to think about and an opportunity to enrich their experience and knowledge. Transferring and sharing expertise knowledge is part of the whole teams daily work, as a way of sharing stories about the knowledge domain they are attached to. Others studies, for instance Osterloh and Frey (2000), would invoke structural, organizational features as motivators of knowledge sharing. This, however, disregards the role of passion as the glue that holds a group together and encourages them to share knowledge. We believe that an experts intrinsic interest in and passion for their expertise plays a crucial role in its sustenance and transfer. This intimate relationship drives them to care for it, expand it and reproduce it, and that is by sharing it with newer generations. As noted previously, according to the literature, the dominant logic underlying the motivation to share knowledge is often been expressed in terms Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

18

L. Si and A. Yakhlef Chesbrough and Teece (1996) warn against introducing market mechanisms in relation to sharing tacit knowledge (such as expertise knowledge). For, if sharing expertise knowledge requires passion and attachment, it will be difcult to manage the sharing process. To the extent that passion cannot be compelled, economically controlled or impacted upon, it poses several challenges pertaining to such questions as how to manage human resources in the context of knowledge initiatives. How, for instance, to motivate not only passionate but mostly nonpassionate people? Another implication concerns the resource-based view of the rm, which maintains that tacit knowledge is a strategic resource because it is difcult to imitate, transfer and appropriate (Wernerfelt 1984; Peteraf 1993; Barney 2001). The present study provides a further elaboration of the picture by suggesting that passion is also a signicant dimension that needs to be taken into account in connection with such issues as the transfer of tacit, sticky knowledge (Szulanski 1996). One of the major contributions of the present study is to shift the focus away from a rationalistic view of knowledge-related initiatives toward an account couched in emotional terms, passion and attachment. An area that is in need of revision is the community of practice literature (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger et al., 2002). In addition to its social orientation and thus its distance from cognitive accounts of knowledge, the community of practice theory has a chance to further amplify its theoretical leverage by incorporating passion as one of its theoretical building blocks. However, our results must not be regarded as nal, and we should consider some limitations of this study, such as its being based on one case and focusing a single scientic community. Thus, future research may further investigate the role passion and non-passion plays in the context of knowledge-related initiatives.

of exchange value, such as nancial rewards. However, we would argue that another reason may well be associated with an experts passion for their knowledge domain. As we have argued this attachment to a eld of expertise is not only a means to an end, but it is largely an end in itselfperforming an activity in order to satisfy a primary need that goes beyond rational thinking. This means that the experts we have studied are rst and foremost so passionate about their object of interest (object orientation) that they are readily disposed to share domain knowledge and leverage it in interactions with others (relational aspect): you are so excited and passionate about your area of expertise that you cannot help talking about it to others! (Bjrn). This strong connection between object orientation and the social, relational aspects of expertise facilitates the knowledge transfer process. Furthermore, participants in a community are not only held together by norms, values and cognitive interpretive grids but also by a shared passion for the activities they jointly perform (Wenger et al., 2002). Such activities give rise to talk about these activities, how they are carried out, how best to perform them, who does what, and so on. These discursive interactions constitute learning opportunities for the participants. In these interactions, the distinction between knowledge transfer and knowledge creation is not relevant. Although in different empirical contexts, these insights nd support in other studies. Jankowicz (1999: 319), for example, describes the process of knowledge transfer as a mutual knowledge creation process, as it captures the negotiation of new understandings that emerge in interactions. In this sense, Bedward et al. (2003: 53) use the concept of translation to capture the collaborative effort of mutual knowledge creation, where each party is trying to inuence the other. This is more so in the case of expertise; because of its relational nature, its acquisition requires interactions with others. Interactions are occasions for experts to confront and tackle new problems and new challenges, which enable them to augment their stock of expertise.

REFERENCES
Implications If the assumption that passion impacts positively the process of sharing knowledge is accepted, several implications need to be considered. For instance, in the context of knowledge transfer, the current focus of the literature on structural, psychological, cognitive, behavioural and social factors (such as the role of organizational structures, individuals attitudes and their characteristics, their competencies, the types of relationships between them, and on the features of knowledge) on knowledge transfer would seem to be limited. Emotional considerations would enhance our understanding of the dynamics of knowledge. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Barbalet JM. 1996. Social Emotions: Condence, Trust & Loyalty. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy 16(9): 7596. Barney JB. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resourcebased view. Journal of Management 27(6): 643650. Bedward D, Jankowicz D, Rexworthy C. 2003. East Meets West: A Case Example of Knowledge Transfer. Human Resource Development International 6(4): 527545. Blau PM. 1964. Exchange & power in social life. New York: Wiley. Burgess D. 2005. What Motivates Employees to Transfer Knowledge Outside Their Work Unit? Journal of Business Communication 42(4): 324348. Cabrera A, Collins WC, Salgado JF. 2006. Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(2): 245264.

Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

Knowledge Sharing
Chesbrough HW, Teece D. 1996. When is Virtual Virtuous: Organizing for Innovation, Harvard Business Review, Jan.-Feb., 6573. Connelly C, Kelloway E. 2003. Predictors of employees perceptions of knowledge sharing culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24(5): 294301. Constant D, Kiesler S, Sproull L. 1994. Whats mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitude about information sharing. Information Systems Research 5(4): 400422. Deci EL. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation, Plenum Press: New York, US. Dermer J. 1975. The Interrelationship of Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1): 125129. Dyer JH, Nobeoka K. 2000. Creating & Managing a High Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network: The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal 21(3): 345367. Eisenhardt KM. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532550. Eisenhardt KM, Santos FM. 2002. Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In Handbook of strategy & management. (1st edn), Pettigrew A, Thomas H, Whittington R (eds.). Sage: London, UK, 139164. Emerson RM. 1981. Social exchange theory. In Social psychology: Sociological perspectives, Rosenberg M, Turner RH (eds.). Basic Books, Inc: NY. Fineman S. 2003. Understanding Emotion at Work, Sage Publications: London. Flyvbjerg B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails & How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Gabriel Y, Grifths DS. 2002. Emotion, learning & organizing. The Learning Organization 9(5): 214221. Gertler MS. 2003. Tacit knowledge & the economic geography of context, or the undenable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography 3: 7599. Gherardi S. 2006. A Journey beyond Institutional Knowledge: Dantes reading of the Odyssey. In Management Education & Humanities, Gagliardi P, Czarniawska B (eds.). Elgar: Cheltenham, 174194. Gherardi S, Nicolini D, Strati A. 2007. Passion for knowing. Organization 14(3): 315329. Hansen MT. 1999. The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1): 82111. Hurt M, Hurt, S. 2005. Transfer of managerial practices by French food retailers to operations in Poland. The Academy of Management Executive 19(2): 3649. Husted K, Michailova S. 2002. Diagnosing & ghting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics 31(1): 6073. Jankowicz D. 1999. Towards a meaningful HRD function in the post-communist economies of Central & Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, 318326. Jarvenpaa SL, Staples DS. 2001. Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information & expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): 151183. Judge TA, Bono JE. 2001. Relationship of core selfevaluations traitsself-esteem, generalized self-efcacy, locus of control, and emotional stabilitywith job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 8092. Kim S, Lee H. 2006. The impact of organizational context & information technology on employee knowledgesharing capabilities. Public Administration Review 66(3): 370385. Knorr Cetina K, Bruegger U. 2000. The Market as an Object of Attachment: Exploring Postsocial Relations in Financial Markets. Canadian Jounal of Sociology 25(2): 14168.

19

Kulkarni UR, Ravindran S, Freeze R. 2006. A knowledge management success model: Theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(3): 309347. Lam A. 1996. Engineers, management and work organization: A comparative analysis of engineers work roles in British and Japanese electronics rms. Journal of Management Studies 33(2): 183212. Landri P. 2007. The Pragmatics of Passion: A Sociology of Attachment to Mathematics. Organization 14(3): 413435. Lave J, Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Lee JH, Kim YG, Kim MY. 2006. Effects of managerial drivers & climate maturity on knowledge-management performance: Empirical validation. Information Resources Management Journal 19(3): 4860. Levin DZ, Cross R. 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science 50(11): 14771490. Lin C-P. 2007a. To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review 36(3): 457475. Lin H-F. 2007b. Effects of extrinsic & intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions, Journal of Information Science 33(2): 135149. Linstead S, Brewis J. 2007. Passion, knowledge and motivation: Ontologies of desire. Organization 14(3): 345365. Michailova S, Hutchings K. 2006. National cultural inuences on knowledge sharing: A comparison of China & Russia. Journal of Management Studies 43(3): 383406. Osterloh M. 2007. Human Resources Management & Knowledge Creation, In Handbook of Knowledge Creation. Nonaka I, Kazuo I (eds.). Oxford UniversityPress: Oxford, 158175 Osterloh M, Frey B. 2000. Motivation, Knowledge Transfer and Organizational Forms. Organization Science 11(5): 538550. Osterloh M, Frost J, Frey B. 2002. The Dynamics of Motivation in Organizational Forms. International Journal of the Economics of Business 9(1): 6177. Patton E, Appelbaum SH. 2003. The Case for Case Studies in Management Research. Management Research News 26(5): 6071. Peteraf MA. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179192. Polanyi M. 1966. The tacit dimension. Doubleday & Company: Garden City, New York. Quigley NR, Tesluk PE, Locke EA, Bartol KM. 2007. A Multilevel Investigation of the Motivational Mechanisms Underlying Knowledge Sharing & Performance. Organization Science 18/1: 7188. Schawlbe M. 1986. The Psychosocial Consequences of Natural & Alienated Work. SUNY Press: New York, NY. Sturdy A 2003. Knowing the Unknowable? A Discussion of Methodological and Theoretical Issues in Emotion Research & Organizational Studies. Organization 10(1): 81105. Szulanski G. 1996. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(Special Issue Winter): 2743. Tagliaventi MR, Mattarelli E. 2006. The role of networks of practice, value sharing, & operational proximity in knowledge ows between professional groups. Human Relations 59(3): 291319. Thomas-Hunt M, Ogden T, Neale M. 2003. Whos really sharing? Effects of social & expert status on knowledge

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm

20

L. Si and A. Yakhlef
Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder WM. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press: Boston. Wernerfelt B. 1984. A resource-based view of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171180. Witkin R. 1974. The Intelligence of Feeling, Heinemann: London. Yin RK. 2003. Case study research: Design & methods (3rd edn). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

exchange within groups. Management Science 49(4): 464477. Wang S, Noe RA. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review & directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review 20(2): 115131. Weber M. 1919. Wissenschaft als beruf & Politik als Beruf; trad. franaise: Le savant et le politique, Plon, 1959. Wenger E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Know. Process Mgmt. 20, 1220 (2013) DOI: 10.1002/kpm