Knowledge that Transforms

At times knowledge can be seen as the source of organizational innovation and change—at other times, however, it can be the very constraint on that change. This conflicted role offers insights into why the phenomenon of organizational knowledge has been interpreted by researchers in multiple and possibly conflicting ways. Some theories depict knowledge as an empirical phenomenon, residing in action and becoming “organizational” in the acquisition, diffusion, and replication of those actions throughout the organization. Others consider it a latent phenomenon, residing in the possibility for constructing novel organizational actions. This paper argues that while each of these qualities—empirical and latent—are intrinsic to knowledge in organizations, our understanding of organizational phenomena is essentially incomplete until the relationship between them is considered. Building on structuration theory, we propose a complementary perspective that views organizational knowledge as the product of an ongoing and recursive interaction between empirical and latent knowledge, between knowledge as action and knowledge as possibility. We ground this complementary model of knowledge in evidence from the field study of two firms whose innovation practices provide unique insights into how knowledge simultaneously enables and constrains behavior in organizations. We then discuss how a complementary perspective avoids the reification of knowledge by depicting it instead as an ongoing and social process and offers an alternative distinction between individual and collective knowledge.

In the field of organizational identity, theory development has far outpaced theory testing. Specifically, several researchers have proposed identity-based models of organizational identification but few have operationalized and tested them. Furthermore, virtually no research has explored how members identify with multiple-identity organizations. This study addresses these gaps and makes three specific contributions to identity theory. First, we operationalize and test a model in which a member's organizational identification is conceptualized in terms of an identity comparison process, i.e., a cognitive comparison between what a member perceives the identity to be and what they think it should be. Second, we extend current thinking by operationalizing organizational identification in terms of multiple and competing identities. Third, as a theory-building exercise, we explore the possibility that a similar identity comparison process operates at the organizational form level of analysis, affecting members' identification with the encompassing form or social institution. We test our model via a survey of members of rural cooperatives—a prototypical ‘hybrid’ identity organizational form, embodying elements of both ‘business’ and ‘family’ identities. Results of the analyses show that organizational identity congruence has a significant effect on member commitment, and form-level identity congruence has significant effects on both cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy, lending support for the use of identity as a multilevel construct. These results provide empirical support for current identity-based models of organizational identification and expand their generalizability to include multiple-identity organizations.