Discussion

In the globalized economy of the 21^st century, it is crucial to gauge the intangible assets of organizations. This calls for new frameworks, models, theories and methods. We claim that the role of trust must be taken into account in the management of the knowledge-based activities of organizations and their stakeholders. Societies have always changed through various cycles, and these developments have changed the forms and models of work, too. According to Halal (1996), there exist three parallel revolutions, namely, revolutions in technology, organization, and leadership. These fundamental changes are contingent upon each other, because it is impossible to pay attention only to one revolution at a time without seeing changes in the others. There is no reason to assume that information technology has reached its zenith. Instead, we are confident about new technological innovations. Simultaneously, we will face fundamental changes in organizations and leadership. As the exploitation of knowledge and information increases, the sources of productivity, social innovations, and competitive advantage in organizations also increases. Therefore, it is crucial to examine how this new, major factor of production changes organizations, and how knowledge-based organizations can be managed. In this chapter we have shed some light on the role of trust in managing knowledge-based organizations. We provided an analysis of trust in relation to organizational culture and climate and collaboration, and indicated the potential impacts of trust on the relational, cognitive and structural dimensions of social capital and its relation to the intellectual capital of an organization.

Implications for Research

We hold the view that because intellectual capital is a wider concept than KM, it should be included in the frameworks that pursue the strategic management of organizational knowledge and information. This entails examining the social nature of knowledge as organizational knowing and understanding the impact of social factors on knowledge generation. Because knowledge management can be defined as involving both the management of people as creators of knowledge and information as the raw material of all knowledge processes, the complementary — not optional or exclusive — nature of knowledge management and information management should be tested empirically.

Trust is also based on social norms or values of behavior (Nooteboom, 2002, p. 11). Norms are a component of the relational dimension of social capital and the link to trust, through normative trust, was indicated. Otherwise, the role of norms in trust building was not examined in this chapter. However, there exists a clear need to conduct empirical research in this area by analysing the various features of the multidimensional concept of trust in relation to organizational culture and climate, collaboration, and social norms and values in the everyday life contexts of knowledge-based work in greater detail.

One approach highlighting the interplay of these factors is suggested by Huotari and Chatman (2001), who claim that the attributes of social network theory, namely, social norms, shared values and homogeneity, network density and dispersion (the diversity of members and social distance among them) explain collaborators' behavior in networks. By combining these concepts with a theory of everyday life information seeking, that is, Chatman's Small World Theory, and the strategic management framework of value constellation (Normann & Ramir z, 1994), Huotari and Chatman (2001) provide elements for a new model of strategic information management. (See also Huotari, 1999, 2001; Huotari & Iivonen, 2001; Huotari & Wilson, 1996.) They show that the concept of social types can be used to examine approaches taken to information and knowledge generation within a network by applying the insider/ outsider description to explain knowledge awareness, acquisition, sharing and use.

Huotari and Chatman (2001) claim that trust has an impact on knowledge creation processes. They show that insiders' lived experiences are shaped by a common cultural, social and occupational perspective by applying the concept of localized integration. Moreover, they argue that accepted social norms give insiders a standard to gauge normative behavior, for example, when collecting information. This means that insiders hold a common worldview when forming strategic partnerships and clusters of collaboration, whereas outsiders may be opposed to this worldview. This indicates that it would be important to distinguish and elaborate on the impact of the different types of trust, for example, normative trust, on information and knowledge-related processes. Moreover, the concept of swift trust should be examined in future studies, because knowledge creation in circumstances where people have no common history of working together requires fast trust building to minimize vulnerability, uncertainty, and risk. Therefore, we find it very appropriate to examine trust clearly from the social network theory perspective.

Furthermore, the two types of social capital — bonding and bridging — find support in Huotari and Chatman's (2001) application of the insider-outsider description to explain collaboration and information-related behavior in networked environments. For example, as bonding social capital facilitates inside-organization knowledge generation, it is manifested through insiders' trust in each other and their ability to create new knowledge. In bridging social capital, in turn, there exists a social network based on trusting relationships established for the purpose of linking an organization to other outside organizations for knowledge creation. (See also Nooteboom, 2002; Putnam, 2000.) Understanding of the relationships of the main concepts in organizational behavior in general and knowledge and information related behavior in particular is required for developing appropriate knowledge strategies and knowledge management programmes. Moreover, the examination of these relationships is a sine-qua-non for the development of new theoretical knowledge, including models and frameworks of strategic management of knowledge and information to sustain a competitive advantage in the networked environment.

We have to bear in mind that trust is only one of the intangible organizational factors to have an impact on knowledge generation. It is highly relevant to enhance and maintain social well-being and the economic development of society. Other intangible organizational factors related to human behavior should also be studied both at the theoretical and empirical levels. We are certain that in the future these intangible factors will gain more critical emphasis and new roles.

Implications for Practice

Understanding of the nature of the main factors within the three dimensions of social capital and their relations at the theoretical level increases the ability to manage these factors in practice. Through various combinations these factors can have an impact on performing in a unique manner for innovative outcomes. The development of trust within and between organizations or strategic partners performing in a networked manner is a demanding and long-term engagement. It requires commitment to collaborate and persistent work towards common goals and strategies for their achievement. These strategic aims could possibly be realized by identifying the main factors of the relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital, for example, by establishing shared values that give a frame of reference to behavioral norms. Moreover, sharing meanings is crucial for trusting and the level of trust is assessed through the outcomes of the joint work processes in collaborative networks.

We propose that organizations pay more attention to potential changes related to the structural dimension of social capital. This could be vital for many knowledge-based organizations in order to generate social capital in the future. We argue that the possibilities of replacing general organizational structure and power-based relations by trust-based relations should be thoroughly examined. This entails replacing hierarchical structures by units whose foundation is formed by collaboration. Halal (1996) emphasizes the need to redefine the employment relationship and break large organizations into small, self-managed units. Further, he proposes that "pay-for-position" thinking should be replaced by "pay-for-performance" thinking. Halal's concept of "knowledge entrepreneurs" refers to a knowledge worker who acts on the basis of a working contract of rights and responsibilities. The knowledge entrepreneur does not fit in with hierarchical organizational structures, but requires the networks of independent units where all units are accountable for results and creative entrepreneurship is encouraged.

Borderlines inhibiting interactions within and between collaborators, organizations or partners should be identified and challenged, too. Moreover, to produce such an architectural landscape or task structure that supports collaboration and informal interactions is a managerial challenge. This is a crucial task because successful collaboration pre-supposes the opportunity for face-to-face contacts. For example, Nonaka and Konno (1998) apply the concept of basho (ba) by the Japanese philosophers Nishida and Shimizu. Ba refers to a physical and mental and even virtual "place" that enables interaction for interpreting information to yield knowledge. As such, it relates to what Heidegger calls a locality that simultaneously includes space and time (Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000, p. 14).

We claim that it is a demanding managerial task to enable sense-making for shared meanings within an organization and between collaborating partners. The development of a communicative, open organizational climate requires executives and managers to behave as role models. Special consideration, even talent, is required to communicate even critical issues to all personnel and collaborators. These discussions should also include the development of the overall mission of an organization.

We believe that building trust-based partnerships with other organizations will be the major managerial challenge in the globalized economy because organizations are no longer able to succeed alone. Partnership building means the pooling of intellectual capital of collaborating partners, and this demands trust. Therefore, trust is the basis for and co-evolution of social capital. Social capital, in turn, facilitates high performing partnerships and increases their capability to produce high quality outcomes contributing to the development of intellectual capital as the major source of economic and social wealth.