When we talk about social networks and trust (Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R., p.1479) I am reminded at how much I value the groups I belong to. I'm not sure where I'd be without them. All of us bring a value and a level of knowledge to our respective groups. And when looking at knowledge more closely, I find it interesting how our tacit knowledge, which is referred to as a "kind of knowledge that human beings only develop through the experience gained over years" (Ribeiro, R., p. 2) is utilized as we receive the explicit knowledge - "knowledge that can be codified" (Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R., p. 1479) - from our instructors.
Polyani, who "first stated that ‘we can know more than we can tell," indicated that "‘explicit knowledge must rely on being tacitly understood and applied"(Ribeiro, R., p. 2).
It's how we classify ourselves - weak or strong ties - that could determine the way we receive knowledge. "Evidence suggests that strong ties encourage more knowledge exchange" (Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R., p 1479). Not to be excluded, weak ties provide information to a group that is non redundant (Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R., p 1479).
So in our groups we have undoubtedly developed some form of trust with each other to make sure an assignment is completed and posted on time. We also trust in each other's competency as opposed to when we all started out in Week 1. Having trust in one another has an affect on the perceived usefulness of the information we're receiving from one another (Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R., p.1480).
Further questions I might be able to answer throughout the program (gotta pass summer first, though!) is whether our classification as weak or strong ties determines the sucess of our group and ultimately the way we acquire information, or explicit knowledge from our instructors.
References
Levin, D.Z., Cross, R. (2004) The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer, Management Science 50, pp. 1477-1490.
Ribeiro, R. (2012) Tacit Knowledge Management, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
Phillip, it is interesting that you say we can classify ourselves as either a strong or weak tie. I think of these classifications as an attribute of a relationship. For example, I may want a strong tie with a tenured professor, but I cannot just label our relationship that. Instead, like you said, you have to build trust and work hard to cultivate a strong tie.
ReplyDeleteIn light of Levin and Cross's (2004) findings, would strong or weak ties be more beneficial for sharing knowledge in this program (assuming trust is present in both)?
Phillip,
ReplyDeleteI like how you related the week's topic to the relationships we have formed in the MCM program. I'm eager to see the results of Dr. Pade's network survey. I am hoping one of the outcomes is a visual advice network map of our cohort. That will be fun to talk about (on Wednesday?).
I think your instinct is right; like Levin and Cross (2004), you connect trust with perceived usefulness. Another reading from the week (Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993) distanced the two concepts somewhat in its separate discussions of advice, communication, and trust networks.
Phillip,
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting analysis. We'll have to revisit in 2013 to see if the ties we've formed today still exist after we've survived this program.
Cynthia