Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Hierarchy and Tacit Knowledge in <strong>the</strong> Swedish Armed
Forces: An Organisational Approach
Ulrica Pettersson 1 and James Nyce 2
1 Lund University, Sweden
2 Ball State University, USA
ulrica.pettersson@fhs.se
jnyce@bsu.edu
Abstract: This paper describes in what ways hierarchical organizations influence <strong>the</strong> utilization and
dissemination <strong>of</strong> knowledge. Particular attention will be paid to <strong>the</strong> role that tacit knowledge has. The reporting
system <strong>of</strong> incidents is one element in a larger institutional process, <strong>of</strong>ten termed ‘lessons learned’ (LL). This
process helps to suggest solutions to identify shortcomings and facilitates in making positive experiences
durable. In organizational learning, <strong>the</strong>re is a need to get hold <strong>of</strong> valuable experience, in order to improve. A
serious weakness in several organizations seems to be that numerous experiences are poorly reported. A
common and well known reporting procedure is ‘after action reviews/reports’ (AAR), used e.g. by <strong>the</strong> US Army
and Marine Corps. It is essential that an effective reporting system presumes trust between informants/staff and
<strong>the</strong> organization <strong>the</strong>y work for. However, institutional belief and practice tends to reduce <strong>the</strong> effectiveness LL
might have. Our paper discusses some difficulties in <strong>the</strong> reporting system and makes some elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
problem more understandable. Some alternatives to standard operating practice will be outlined here that could
help remedy some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se problems. The ‘just culture’ literature will be used to point out <strong>the</strong> direction
institutional redesign should take regarding responsibility and accountability. This paper could also help guide
future research in this area, by identifying critical assumptions, defining why certain problems need to be refined
and by looking at why current research techniques are not sufficient.
Keywords: trust, just culture, reporting system, disciplinary action, after-action review
1. Introduction
The objective <strong>of</strong> a learning organisation is to adjust <strong>the</strong> organisation’s ability to fit into and adapt to its
environment (Espejo, Schuhmann, Schwninger and Bilello 1996). To achieve something in
organizational learning, <strong>the</strong>re is a permanent need to get hold <strong>of</strong> valuable experience (success and
failure), in order to analyze, and instill improvements. A serious weakness can <strong>of</strong>ten be observed in
this reporting/collecting process. Several organizations seem to fail and numerous reports are also
poorly written. Within any large hierarchical organization <strong>the</strong>re is <strong>of</strong>ten a sizeable distance between
<strong>the</strong> top and bottom ranks. The result is that when problems are recognized <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten get “trapped”
somewhere along <strong>the</strong> chain <strong>of</strong> command. This tends to occur most frequently somewhere in <strong>the</strong>
middle layer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> hierarchy and this is one reason why some organizational <strong>the</strong>orists have argued
for reducing or ‘flattening’ command chains within <strong>the</strong> modern military organization. The Swedish
Armed Force (SwAF), like most military organizations is extremely hierarchical. Paradoxically, <strong>the</strong>
more discussion <strong>the</strong>re seems to be <strong>of</strong> ‘flattening hierarchies’ and ‘staff empowerment’, <strong>the</strong> more rigid
and hierarchical some organisations seem to become.
Initial position for this research can be found in difficulties a researcher (first author) had in recruiting
volunteers for an experimental study on mistakes and blunders that have occurred on SwAF
international missions. As <strong>the</strong> study went on, considerable attrition among <strong>the</strong> participants in <strong>the</strong>
experiment was observed (Pettersson 2010). Our paper also extends previous research which
concluded that organizational or pr<strong>of</strong>essional culture can prevent individuals from admitting mistakes
and blunders because <strong>the</strong>y fear <strong>the</strong> consequences <strong>the</strong>se admissions may have (Pettersson 2009).
This suggests <strong>the</strong>re is little interest, value, or reward for SwAF’s soldiers and <strong>of</strong>ficers in discussing
mistakes and blunders that took place in missions abroad.
The aim in our work is to discuss difficulties in <strong>the</strong> reporting system and make some elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
problem more understandable. The ‘just culture’ literature has been used to point out <strong>the</strong> direction
organizational redesign ought to take regarding responsibility and accountability. An organization
should encourage individuals to share knowledge and to reflect upon how and with whom <strong>the</strong>y share
it. If this is not done, knowledge can become commodified even fetishized. The result is that
knowledge is given an exchange value and becomes directly linked to <strong>the</strong> expression <strong>of</strong> power
(Ahrenfelt 1995).
328