Knowledge leakage By Assoc. Dr. Susanne DursT South Ural State University – 2 2

– 22 December 2016
University of skövde – www.his.se/EN

about an individual’s willingness to share with others his/her created

or acquired knowledge (Bock et al., 2005).

Knowledge sharing is needed for transforming individual knowledge into organizational knowledge (Foss et al., 2010). Additionally, given today’s business environment, collaborations with other actors have become a necessity for companies in order to remain competitive.

Background

3

within a firm’s boundaries” (Frishammar et al., 2015, p. 85).

The majority of literature seems to identify core knowledge as the focal type of knowledge in the context of knowledge leakage.
Jiang et al. (2013) define knowledge leakage as “the extent to which the focal firm's private knowledge is intentionally appropriated by or unintentionally transferred to partners” (p. 984).
Similarly, Lau et al. (2010) talk about technological knowledge leakage, which they define as “the risk of loss of proprietary technology owned by the case company” (p. 966).

Knowledge Leakage I

4

that the latter does not refer to the core resources

to that extent (Anand and Goyal, 2009).

Critical knowledge, however, is in the eye of the beholder!

Knowledge leakage is difficult to avoid in many situations, e.g., if an innovative or an integrated product is developed, still there are other situations where this challenge can and should be addressed

Knowledge Leakage II

5

organizations enter into collaborative agreements/partnerships






Knowledge Leakage III
6

SMEs as they dispose of fewer knowledge resources compared to

their larger counterparties.

Knowledge Leakage and SMEs

7

internal and external stakeholders
 SMEs should actively pursue stakeholder management.

For example, stakeholder mapping would help SMEs to identify those primary stakeholders that pose the most serious threat concerning knowledge leakage

How to Address the danger of Knowledge Leakage

9

generally accepted
KM has established itself as a field of

study
Yet, a closer look at extant literature suggests that knowledge is mainly discussed as something of value
Potentially negative aspects, like knowledge as a liability, seem to be underestimated
This is dangerous as it suggests that to date we have only an unbalanced understanding of the concept of knowledge and its management

As is Situation in KM Literature

3

to knowledge management including knowledge risk management is required to

help organizations survive in the long run
It is particularly relevant for SMEs!!!

How to Address this situation?

4

which can be the consequence of both voluntary and involuntary

turnover and (long-term) absence
relational risk
risks related to decision making relating to new strategies, markets, products as well as other important business issues
risks related to knowledge gaps
risks related to outsourcing of business functions, such as accounting or human resources management

SMEs are exposed to a number of knowledge risks

5

“defined by the adverse impact on profitability of several distinct

sources of uncertainty” (Bessis, 1998, p. 5).
Risk management is primarily about identifying, assessing, monitoring, controlling and reporting firm risks.
→ the focus should be on all types of risk

Knowledge Risk Management

6

of value
 the study of knowledge risk management (KRM) is

in its infancy

Research on Knowledge Risk Management

7

decreased capacity for effective action or decision making in a

specific organizational context” (DeLong, 2004, p. 21).

It can be the result of personnel turnover, e.g. a company loses a key organization member;
the dissolution of well-established teams;
the outsourcing of business functions;
a system crash and the theft of data are further examples that can lead to a loss of documented (explicit) knowledge.

Possible areas of knowledge risks I

8

and can be defined as the “loss of knowledge intended

to stay within a firm’s boundaries” (Frishammar et al., 2015, p. 85).

Knowledge leakage, in the meaning of knowledge leaking away from its origin can occur in different situations and be positive, when the organization benefits from it, or negative, when it is detrimental to the organization (Mohamed et al., 2007).

Possible areas of knowledge risks II

9

or not supporting the use of the full knowledge capacity.

It is defined as any failure in the process of knowledge conversion, better known as the spiral of knowledge creation as proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997)

Possible areas of knowledge risks III

10

2015

abandoning or giving up knowledge) are neglected in the KM

literature
Yet, they are a crucial element in organizational KM processes as well as change processes.
In fact, the inability to unlearn or forget can produce a rigidity in thinking and acting and create a blinkering of outlook which prevents change being implemented when it is necessary.
In business environments where high levels of turbulence and change occur, the capacity to do effectively is crucial to organizational performance.

Background I

21

on topics such as the nature of forgetting, unlearning, and

their relationship to change and learning, what the antecedents of unlearning are, and what the consequences of unlearning are.

Background II

22

of abandoning or giving up knowledge are functional for organizations.
Distinguishing

between what constitutes useful and dysfunctional knowledge loss requires defining and differentiating between the specific and distinctive forms that it can take.
Accidental vs. deliberate loss
Accidental knowledge loss is where knowledge and capabilities are lost inadvertently
Deliberate knowledge loss involves a conscious process of giving up and abandoning knowledge, values, and/or practices which are deemed to have become outdated.

Unlearning as a Type of Deliberate Forgetting I

23

as having generally negative and dysfunctional consequences, while deliberate processes

of forgetting are regarded as having positive consequences for the organizations which undertake them.

Unlearning as a Type of Deliberate Forgetting II

24

knowledge and practices which may be taken for granted and

which are deeply embedded in organizational routines and cultures.

Difficulties with unlearning

26

there is no consensus in the unlearning literature regarding the

nature of their relationship.
In terms of the relationship between change and unlearning, the vast majority of the unlearning literature suggests that unlearning is a precursor for or facilitator of change. However, only a few papers consider the relationship between unlearning and change in any depth.

Unlearning, Learning, and Change

27

and organizations to unlearn.
Individual-level antecedents of unlearning
Organizational-level antecedents of

unlearning

Antecedents of Unlearning

29

e.g. feeling of fear and anxiety
Unlearning which is related to

admitting to and learning from failure can be an even more difficult process for people to undertake
Perception of unlearning as threatening and undermining people’s self-interest, as it may impact not only their status and esteem, but also the power they possess, and the interests they are trying to pursue
Cognitive-level factors can also act as a potential barrier, through blinkering people’s thinking and creating a sense of cognitive myopia and inertia

Individual-level antecedents of unlearning

30

operating procedures and specific work practices can create an inertia

that makes them difficult to change
Nature of people’s jobs, i.e. complexity and opportunities that jobs provide


Retraining of existing staff is considered as promising of enhancing an organization’s capacity to unlearn.
Provision of access to training is a way to facilitate attitudes to unlearning during change initiatives.

Organizational-level antecedents of unlearning

31