Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Frank Habermann, Jörg Fehlinger and Karen Schmidt
reader ever receive <strong>the</strong> answer, “Well, I am going to showcase myself, telling <strong>the</strong> world how great I
am”? Probably not! But this should have been <strong>the</strong> case – because “personal identity” is considered to
be <strong>the</strong> most important reason for people to join an online social network like Myspace, Facebook,
LinkedIn, Gowalla, Flickr, and Twitter (Kabani 2010).
We know this behavioral pattern from social network analysis (Wasserman/Faust 1997). The need for
recognition is entirely human, a natural source <strong>of</strong> intrinsic motivation. The impulse to express our
individuality is a positive source <strong>of</strong> energy, probably <strong>the</strong> ultimate driver <strong>of</strong> creativity and innovation
(Gratton et al. 1999). And this is not limited to online communities, <strong>of</strong> course. Being proud <strong>of</strong> a large
number <strong>of</strong> attendees <strong>of</strong> your “real world” performances, and enjoying a high count <strong>of</strong> followers in <strong>the</strong>
“virtual world”, basically means <strong>the</strong> same thing. Web communities are just an additional channel for
creating social contacts and receiving appreciation. And due to <strong>the</strong> fact that online communities are
available at low cost and with no special requirements, <strong>the</strong>y are heavily used. People have an ego,
and <strong>the</strong>re is nothing negative about it. It is just a remarkable fact that clearly admitting this does not
appear to be socially acceptable in most <strong>of</strong> our cultures.
Therefore, <strong>the</strong> interviewed person most likely would not reveal his/her eagerness to gain recognition.
Instead, (s)he would probably tell something about <strong>the</strong> intention to meet people and share
information. Both, in line with expectations, express a certain level <strong>of</strong> activity and involvement.
But even in this case, Web reality might look different. According to empirical studies, almost two
thirds <strong>of</strong> online community users are passive spectators, readers ra<strong>the</strong>r than writers <strong>of</strong> micro
messages, product ratings, and blog posts (see e.g. Forrester 2009).
In summary, <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> online social network members are ei<strong>the</strong>r passive content consumers or
active producers that are clearly driven by individual goals. Since online knowledge networks are
based on <strong>the</strong> same set <strong>of</strong> technologies and mechanisms, we assume that <strong>the</strong> very same core
patterns apply. If we agree on this conclusion, we can add two more challenges for <strong>the</strong> development
<strong>of</strong> valuable knowledge networks:
Use <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> individual goals
Activate <strong>the</strong> waiting assets <strong>of</strong> passive members
3. The management approach
The following figure summarizes <strong>the</strong> above-mentioned challenges. In order to cope with <strong>the</strong>se, it
seems reasonable to look for governance models that mediate between an enterprise’s need for
effective management <strong>of</strong> its human capital and employees’ willingness to support this strategy.
How to succeed in corporate knowledge networks
1. Use <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> individual goals
2. Do not try to extract knowledge
3. Do not rely on codified knowledge
4. Focus on <strong>the</strong> best knowledge sharers
5. Activate <strong>the</strong> waiting assets <strong>of</strong> passive members
6. Abandon <strong>the</strong> myth <strong>of</strong> comprehensive control
7. Enable emerging processes
Figure 3: Seven Key Challenges for Developing Knowledge Networks
The desired management model should include <strong>the</strong> fact that most relevant learning as well as
significant innovation cannot be planned step-by-step. Instead, creative solutions as well as valuable
improvements typically develop from a dynamic, multi-dimensional process that happens at <strong>the</strong>
crossroads <strong>of</strong> chaos and order (see e.g. Taylor 1994, Madanmohan 2005, Govindarajan 2010). To
describe this situation, i.e. “any non-linear, (…) complex system, which shows characteristics <strong>of</strong> both,
order and chaos”, Dee Hock, founder and former CEO <strong>of</strong> VISA, introduced <strong>the</strong> term “chaordic” (Hock
1999). Building up on Hock’s understanding <strong>of</strong> a “chaordic organization”, chaordic knowledge
management deliberately abandons <strong>the</strong> illusions <strong>of</strong> comprehensive control. Additionally, in order to
402