Access to the company network is based on personal contacts. A range of contacts is continually used, but the reliability of the network depends on the person who gives the information. Information from colleagues is con- sidered to be reliable and trustworthy in the main. There is a blend of assessing the information that the person gives and reliability of the person giving that information.
An interesting feature of this group is the fact that the network is also evaluated from the opposite point of view, the individual responsibility to be able to share critical information. The output of information processed is as important as the amount taken in and individuals are responsible for for- warding information to the right people. This includes an ability to under- stand and appreciate what each person needs.
We have a lot of cooperation which demands a communicative ability and a willingness to share. You are able to destroy and slow down processes by the fact that you don’t share. (Trainer)
I trust in the fact that we are able to bother each other with questions and interactions.
yThere is constant interacting and it is important that everyone participate enough in the information sharing. But not too much, there is no idea to sit on meetings where you cannot contribute. (Researcher)
Mutual respect is the aim, but human factors and personal reasons affect the situation in the end. In the information-sharing process, the ability to pri- oritise is also underlined. It is important to define the key tasks in order to communicate knowledge effectively. But there is also another aspect of sharing that underlines the importance of every expert: ‘‘We depend on each other’s knowledge – do not upset the other or you remain without infor- mation!’’ (Communication).
extent. Information sharing is turbulent and therefore difficult to structure.
The information profiles in this group show different patterns than those exhibited in the insurance context where network structures are clear and information sharing is more about verifying existing information than pro- ducing new knowledge. However, the analysis reveals that the information behaviour shown is also connected to many aspects that are not embedded in the work tasks or organisational environment. Both groups can be said to have an open climate where the ability to communicate is viewed as important. The reasons and motives for this are different, however. The claims handlers value a collaborative working style where they feel connected to each other and have mutual goals to handle a certain number of claims. The atmosphere that has developed is built upon these common goals, but they also depend on the fact that the people there like each other’s company.
They have common interests outside the work. The motives for sharing can also be partly explained by shared goals to do good in support of the customer’s interests. The feeling of belonging to a group affects how group members behave towards their group (Tyler & Blader, 2001). It is not only the group synergies that are motivating factors, but also the possibilities that exist to develop a positive sense of self within the group setting. The younger members of the group are more optimistic about their capacity to affect activities in the organisation than are their older colleagues.
The experts in the biotechnology firm have a group identity that is mainly built around individual experts working to develop a unique product. They have their specialities as a strong value and goal, and this shapes both the individual and group identity. The communicative climate is open and eve- ryone is aware of the importance of keeping their colleagues informed.
However, in practice, the communications suffer from barriers such as time constraints and information overload. It has been concluded that in the information-sharing process here, the responsibility to receive information is underscored. But apart from the responsibility to seek and retrieve infor- mation, there is also a responsibility to understand information. It is important to note that everybody does not understand or have the same understanding of the different factors. The responsibility to verify informa- tion lies at the individual level, and there is not a social or collective judge- ment of reliability as in the claims handling department where the claims meetings function as a collective judgement of reliability. Therefore, infor- mation as a resource is defined as a group asset in the claims handling unit where the individual expertise and knowledge is brought to the group systematically. In the biotechnology firm, information is a personal asset delivered to the group or to specific members of the group. Although
information is a personal resource that is shared with the other workers, the open office landscape helps the organisation shape some level of common knowledge base where everyone can see and hear what the other functions are working with. ‘‘The open office landscape means that everything is public information’’ (Communication).
The claims handling group has built a very clear structure of their infor- mation sources, and there are also clear communication patterns. Personal networks are easy to access because the whole department is physically located in the same corridor. However, the individuals within the group are able to utilise the collective knowledge base depending on tasks, expert sta- tus, and personal (individual) preferences. The personal networks are accessed according to role and status within the network. The claims han- dlers access the network on daily basis, and coffee and lunch breaks are part of the informal structure of the personal interactions. Because of the routine- based work the claims handlers also know how the work pace is structured among them and can adjust the personal interactions according to that.
The different roles in this group can be pictured as novices and experts where the novices use the network broadly while the older members and experts have specific persons to turn to. Workers also experience these roles as information retrievers and information producers. The access to the net- work also shows how weak and strong ties work (Granovetter, 1983). It is important to notice that the novices mainly use weak ties when they ask anybody for advice. At the same time, they contribute to a broader aware- ness of different problems in the group as a whole when they ask many persons about difficult cases. Those who use only specific persons (strong ties) limit the awareness to these persons. Information sharing in the bio- technology context does not have very visible structures. There is a hidden profile in the motives for sharing or not sharing information (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). In this group, the profiles reveal a pattern of how internal net- works are built and the importance of trust in these connections. The reliability is judged to depend on individuals. Some persons are more thor- ough and detailed than others. Generally, information is perceived to be reliable from colleagues – people do not deliberately give wrong informa- tion. The work environment and time span put special demands on sharing, and it is important to be able to rely on the individuals around you when a formal structure and channels are missing. The motives for not sharing information are also mentioned where a decision not to share can have considerable impact on other activities.
While the biotechnology group lacks clear communicative structures, the aspect of trust is treated somewhat differently. Trust is based on the fact that
Motives for Sharing 25
the experts trust each other to share right information at the right time.
Traditionally trust is seen to be built over time (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), which is not always possible in this environment. Trust is a more
‘‘hands on’’ feature where the experts must trust that the others share what they know. They are also forced to believe and trust the knowledge of another expert. It is embedded in the climate that there must be a level of trust between the individual experts, but it is clear that this is a fairly fragile state.
When someone delivers incorrect information, the trust is quite soon ques- tioned, and the level of trust must be re-built. Trust is, therefore, mainly built from high-quality expertise and an appreciation of the expertise of others.
Personal relationships are also stressed. ‘‘Those who you interact with about work tasks, you more easily communicate with otherwise’’ (Training). It has been shown in previous research that personal relationship with an individual is the primary influence when managers select a source for information (Mackenzie, 2005).
Another challenge that must be faced is the need to combine information from the different activities. The training expert compares this heterogene- ous group to a relay race – you have to wait for those processes that are slower, because information is not always transferred that easily. Cooper- ation depends on the individual’s cooperative ability. What happens if the baton falls?
A challenge in this kind of organization is to combine information from different sources all the time; be organised and think of who should know about this. You should function like a computer, prioritise tasks etc. But there are many human factors affecting this organised way of information sharing. Some people have a great ability to put up information but are not so good at sharing. This affects the feeling of whom is easy to cooperate with. You need the two-way communication. (Training)
The experts and their co-ordinator are bound together by an immediate objective – the creation of innovative products to sustain the company, and they work within tight time constraints. What is shared, or brought to the common attention of the group, is highly selective and depends on judge- ments about the consequences of sharing at any given juncture. There is more at stake – each specialist must trust the judgments of the others, as he or she is not competent to assess the quality of another specialist input. And specialist external sources must be filtered by the judgment of resident experts – few information sources can thus be used in common. The habits of the experts in the biotechnology group are similar to those that have been reported in accounts of interdisciplinary scientific collaboration among spe- cialist experts in other contexts – water planning (Van House, 2003) and public administration (Drake, Steckler, & Koch, 2004). They have a
contractual obligation to share, but they do not always believe that ‘‘out- sider’’ recipients will fully understand the specialist data that has been sent to them, and, therefore, they will be highly selective in what they contribute to others.
To summarise, information sharing is a goal-directed behaviour, and it is important to think of the motives that influence what and to whom to share.
There are five common motives for the two cases but they have different preferences in the two groups (Table 11).