Connecting Power Dynamics and Knowledge Sharing within Consultants’ and Clients’ Relationships

(1)

Connecting Power Dynamics and Knowledge Sharing within Consultants’ and Clients’

Relationships

Master’s Thesis 30 credits

Department of Business Studies Uppsala University

Spring Semester of 2019

Date of Submission: 2019-05-29

Efstathia Biloroglou

Isabel Freire Panadero

Supervisor: Josef Pallas

(2)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our supervisor Josef Pallas as he supported us throughout the whole process of writing this thesis with much appreciated feedback and patient guidance. We would also like to thank all the consultants that participated, we are very grateful for all the valuable input and insights they gave us during the interviews.

Efstathia Biloroglou & Isabel Freire Panadero

(3)

Abstract

The aim of our study was to further investigate how the perceived power dynamics connect to knowledge sharing through the perspective of consultants and within their relationships with clients. We have chosen to conduct a qualitative study and had semi-structured interviews with 8 consultants. According to our findings, the two concepts are highly connected since power and knowledge seem to be inseparable and can both be viewed as resources and embedded in practice. Looking through the different consultants’ and clients’ relationships, this study reveals the existence of mutual dependencies and power imbalances which might affect the conditions of knowledge sharing. The presence of collaboration is evident in our results and the existing resistance that clients show, sometimes facilitates knowledge sharing and other times possibly hinders it. Providing several examples of different types of relationships between the two main actors of the study, we argue that power dynamics evolve differently depending on those types and either work as an obstacle or facilitate the exchange of information, expertise, skills and know-how. Another finding was the presence of what we labelled as network power, that may challenge the definition of power as a dyadic phenomenon.

Keywords: Power dynamics, knowledge sharing, consultants’ and clients’ relationships, collaboration, resistance, experts.

(4)

1. Introduction

Knowledge sharing has been recognized as strategically important to organizations and studying the conditions that may favour or hinder it is increasingly necessary. Therefore, knowledge sharing has been discussed and researched in different contexts and several mechanisms and techniques have been described among knowledge management related studies (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994; Staples and Webster, 2008). For instance, some researchers have highlighted the importance of knowledge sharing and its role increasing productivity and performance, choosing activities and setting goals (Wang and Ko, 2012). In addition, it has been described as a necessary condition for achieving effective collaborative practices, therefore it is essential for the shared knowledge to become an integrated part of a synergic solution, rather than being merely combined or even completely ignored (Carlile, 2004; Levina, 2005).

Additionally, as consultants work closely with organizations, there is a mutual exchange of information and expertise when, for instance, one explains a problem while the other proposes solutions. Indeed, consultants are considered to be experts and professionals when it comes to creating and transferring knowledge (Sturdy, 2011; Kantola, 2009). They are key generators and distributors of new knowledge as they provide their expertise and professional skills as well as facilitate organizational activities and change (Sturdy, 2011). Based on Kantola’s (2009) explanation regarding the ideology of professionalism, consultants claim that they possess unique expertise and knowledge for businesses and interest groups. This expert knowledge could be considered to be an asset and a source of power for the consultants (Davenport and Early, 2010).

While sharing knowledge, consultants and clients are dependent on each other and their relationship could be described in different ways (Fincham, 1999). According to Davenport and Early (2010), clients may resist the consultants’ propositions and avoid compliance with their requests, but at the same time they are dependent on the consultants’ expertise. In these cases of interdependence, there is a divide between internal (client) and external (consultant) expertise that may create tensions. Similarly, these tensions could affect their relationship, the power balance between them (Fincham, 1999) or how they share knowledge. Therefore, it would be interesting to further investigate how the perceived power dynamics are connected to knowledge sharing.

(7)

2

1.1 Problem Statement

The concept of knowledge sharing is recognized as an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people (Cummings, 2004) and depends on the actors that participate in this interactive and ongoing process. Simultaneously, a study points out that knowledge sharing is not only dependent on the characteristics of the sources, recipients, or channels but is also affected by its context (Ghobadi and D’Ambra, 2012). A part of the context in which this activity takes place is the relationships between actors and more specifically in our case, among consultants and clients. Indeed, some studies have examined knowledge within the structure of relationships. An illustration of this connection was made by Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012) who identified three types of consultants’ and clients’ relationships where the actors have several roles and different amount of control over the projects they are working on. As knowledge sharing depends on the contextual conditions in which it takes place, so does the phenomena of power since it involves a dyadic relation between two agents (French and Raven, 1959).

Within this context, both actors seem to exert power and according to Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012) the dynamics of power that emerge when consultants work with their clients have been a topic of interest. Moreover, according to Fincham (1999), the power balance between them could either be fairly equal or tip towards one’s advantage which could potentially affect their relations. In most cases, the exercise of power is connected to the concept of control over resources and information. As mentioned above, consultants possess expert power and at the same time they need to share their specialized skills with the client in conversations or meetings (Davenport and Early, 2010). As for the clients, they also exercise power and at the same time they are expected to hand over a certain portion of control over their documents in order to solve the existing problem (Davenport and Early, 2010).

In the past, researchers have made the connection between power and knowledge and as highlighted by Foucault (1980), these concepts are closely related and inseparable since it is impossible for power to be exercised without knowledge and for knowledge not to create power. Another example of this linkage was given by Staples and Webster (2008) who argued that exchanging knowledge implies some loss of power and control over it, creating risks for the sharer. Similarly to Foucault (1980), Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012) have also examined the concept of power and knowledge together and analysed how their connection

(8)

3

influences consultants’ and clients’ relationships in the implementation of configurable technologies.

Therefore, it is quite clear from existing studies that both knowledge and power are closely related and each of them depend on the structure of the actors’ relationships (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012). However, we believe that the connection of the “dyadic” and relational views of power dynamics and knowledge sharing could receive more attention, especially within consultants’ and clients’ relationships in order to better understand how they relate to each other. By further looking at these concepts, we are hoping to shed some light into this matter and theoretically contribute to the scientific community.

1.2 Research Question

“Through the perspective of consultants, how are the perceived power dynamics connected to knowledge sharing within consultants’ and clients’ relationships?”

1.3 Purpose of the Study

This study’s key purpose is to research and understand how power dynamics relate to knowledge sharing between consultants and their clients. More specifically, our contribution will shed light on our theme through the consultants’ perspective and perceived power dynamics within their relationships with clients. Through examining the conditions in which knowledge sharing takes place as well as the relative influence of power dynamics on them, we hope that the findings will provide a theoretical contribution by adding knowledge on the already existing scientific theories as well as a practical contribution. Indeed, knowing more about this subject could potentially improve knowledge sharing between consultants and their clients which could ultimately improve their performance as well as their value-add.

(9)

4

2. Theoretical Background

The main theories we plan on using in this study are based on the theories of knowledge sharing and power dynamics. A review of the existing academic literature and previous empirical studies will enable us to identify the available data and the existing knowledge as well as discuss different perspectives and approaches regarding this topic. Lastly, we will present a summary of concepts will be used during the analysis of the results.

2. 1 Knowledge Sharing

2.1.1 The Concepts of Knowledge and Knowledge Sharing

Many studies have attempted to identify the definitions of knowledge sharing and different strategic management scholars have also identified a number of variables that can affect it (Zhang, 2018; Reinholt et al., 2011; Staples and Webster, 2008). The main similarity between the different interpretations is the focus on the idea of knowledge which has more specifically, been described as a critical, valuable, intangible and unlimited asset for organizations (Staples and Webster, 2008). Even though knowledge can be considered as a broad and subjective idea, it is commonly seen as a resource for organizations including information, skills, know-how and expertise. Moreover, according to Bourdieu (1977) practical knowledge can define courses of action in accordance with information received and can be held not only individually but also collectively. March (1991) also approached the idea of knowledge in his study of exploration and exploitation in organizational learning and highlighted the importance of using, diffusing and developing new knowledge in organizations. According to the author,

“organizations store knowledge in their procedures, norms, rules, and forms and they accumulate such knowledge over time, learning from their members” (p. 73).

The concept of knowledge sharing is also recognized as an activity through which knowledge mainly information, skills or expertise is exchanged among people (Cummings, 2004) and this movement of knowledge is described as a capability of different actors and agents (Staples and Webster, 2008). Even though different names such as knowledge distribution, diffusion or transfer have been given to this movement of knowledge from one actor to another or from one team member to another, all the above names and concepts practically describe the same act of exchanging information. In addition, Cummings (2004) viewed knowledge sharing as the provision of task information and know-how in order to solve problems, develop new ideas, or

(10)

5

implement policies and procedures throughout the collaboration between different agents and actors. He also emphasizes that in order for knowledge sharing to be successful it requires extended learning processes and not only good communication skills. According to Nelson and Cooprider (1996), knowledge sharing between groups is also connected to the development of mutual trust and influences relationships among the actors. In addition, Staples and Webster (2008) have also examined the relationship between knowledge sharing, trust as well as task interdependence and they have highlighted that “knowledge sharing is also critical to virtual teams which are often created to allow people with different backgrounds, expertise and perspectives to work on a problem” (p. 618).

Having in mind the above descriptions of knowledge sharing, we gain an overall view of different approaches in various contexts of study. However, it will be interesting to see the interpretations of these concepts from the consultant’s perspective throughout their collaboration with different clients and in different consultants’ and clients’ relationships.

2.1.2 Knowledge Sharing and Consultants

More recently, organizational learning theories have become a central focus in this field, as successful knowledge sharing is increasingly seen as requiring an ongoing process of learning interactions, rather than just a series of communications (Szulanski, 2000). Furthermore, the contribution of knowledge by both consultants and clients is equally important in this context of studying. On the one hand the consultant is seen as a source of information as well as a provider of practical tools who possesses and shares general knowledge acquired through experience over the years. On the other hand, clients also possess unique information and provide access to practical local knowledge according to Coelho et al. (2016). Therefore, it can be argued that knowledge sharing is essential in collaborations, especially between consultants and clients since the first ones are trying to make knowledge visible and tacit as well as provide their expertise in order to solve a problem. Similarly, Canato and Giangreco (2011) argued that consultants try to fill the managers’ knowledge gap and improve their competencies while clients provide local practical knowledge that is contingent on each particular firm (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012).

The concept of knowledge sharing is also being addressed by Ring and Van de Ven (1994) as they emphasize that in order to create collectively valid knowledge, it is essential to be able to exchange information while interacting with other agents. Furthermore, based on existing studies, knowledge sharing does not only depend on the attributes of source, recipient, and

(11)

6

channel but is also affected by the context within which knowledge sharing takes place (Ghobadi and D’Ambra, 2012). For example, in the context of consultants and clients’

relationships, the movement of knowledge, information, skills and know-how might vary in different cases such as the ones described by Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012): dependency, autonomy and cooperation. Moreover, due to the existing barriers of collaborations such as power imbalance, lack of focus of knowledge and potential resistance in transferring knowledge between entities (Davenport and Early 2010), knowledge sharing constitutes a challenge for both clients and consultants.

2.2 Power Dynamics

2.2.1 Types of Power and Power Dynamics

The concept of power has been examined in multiple academic papers referring to different types of power within several contexts. French and Raven (1959) approached the phenomena of power in the paper “The Bases of Social Power” and proposed a “taxonomy of power” based on the sources of power. They have identified and distinguished the following major types of social power: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent and expert. As they highlighted, the

“phenomenon of power involves a dyadic relation between two agents which includes the behavior of the agent who exerts power and the reactions of the recipient of this behavior” (p.

150). The dynamics that emerge in this dyadic relation are often described as power dynamics and according to Davenport and Early (2010) are evident in the day-to-day interactions of consultants and clients.

Based on French and Raven’s (1959) model, Davenport and Early (2010) distinguished two basic forms of power: 1) personal power which is associated with the potential influence between the person in power and the subordinate and derives from personality traits, expertise or skill set of the person and 2) position power which refers to the authority that comes with an official job role. It is interesting to see that power dynamics may differ in different superior- subordinate relationships as the actors involved either choose to commit, resist or show compliance when the other actor practices power. Another type of power presented by Pfeffer (1992) is the “decision power” which is described as the ability to participate in certain stages of the decision-making process and members can obtain that form of power through personal attributes. Additionally, French and Raven (1959) examined the “legitimate power” of consultants over the discourse of their practice which refers to the ability to administer to

(12)

7

another feelings of obligation or responsibility (French and Raven, 1959). As Brunsson (1985) highlights, the legitimate spheres of status and power exist in organizations that control and influence their specific activities.

As Davenport and Early (2010) highlight, control of information is a source of power, however, control over resources cannot be created, maintained or transformed without situated power relations (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012). Additionally, according to Bourdieu (1977), power relations are produced, reproduced, and transformed through the everyday practices of agents. The same point of view is also supported by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), since the authors highlight that power depends on a high level on the actions of the agents and actors involved as well as the structure of their relationship. Based on these approaches, power involves a dyadic relation between agents therefore it can be argued that power dynamics refer to an interactive and continuous process.

2.2.2 Power and Consultants

In the context of consultants’ and clients’ relationships, it can be argued that the power dynamics play a decisive role not only in solving the existing problems and creating value for the clients but also ensuring the effectiveness of their cooperation. As mentioned by French and Raven (1959), the expert power which the consultants possess, is “based on the perception that one agent has some special knowledge or expertness” (p. 154) and the strength of this power depends on the extent of knowledge within a given area. Consultants are seen as “power elites” and knowledgeable professionals by their clients as they have “expert power” (Furusten and Werr, 2016). On the other hand, clients also possess and practice power over the consultants since they also control valuable information and resources (French and Raven, 1959).

The concept of expert power has been addressed by Davenport and Early (2010) and consists of the clients viewing consultants as knowledgeable professionals and their knowledge being valuable and not readily available through other channels. Moreover, they highlight that the client generally empowers the consultant with personal power and the consultant commonly relies on expert power when dealing with clients. In addition, Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012) argue that power mechanisms can affect the relation between consultants and clients as well as the project results. In their point of view, the exercise of power and control over the project and the resources, differs when it comes to clients and consultants.

(13)

8

2.3 Power and Knowledge

The connection between power and knowledge has previously been mentioned in the scientific community (Foucault, 1980; Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012; Marshall and Rollinson, 2004).

Foucault (1980) highlighted the importance of studying power and he contributed to the academic studies, by applying his power-oriented perspective to different subjects. Indeed, there is a deep connection between both concepts of power and knowledge since it is impossible for power to be exercised without knowledge and for knowledge not to create power (Foucault, 1980). Furthermore, Davenport and Early (2010) argue that whoever controls the information has power since control over information is a source of power.

In addition, these concepts share some similarities as they are both complex, characterized into several types and embedded in different contexts (Cook and Brown, 1999; French and Raven, 1959; Davenport and Early, 2010). For instance, while knowledge could be either tacit or explicit, power could be either personal or positional (Davenport and Early, 2010). In addition, both concepts could either be possessed by individuals or by groups (Marshall and Rollinson, 2004; Cook and Brown, 1999). Another similarity is that they could both be analysed through two different epistemological perspectives: the possession view and the practice view which will be presented below.

2.3.1 Power and Knowledge as a Resource

We have previously connected the concepts of power and knowledge and shown some similarities they share. In this section we will argue that both knowledge and power can be considered as resources when looked upon with a possession perspective. Similarly, we will also examine how this epistemological view could be linked with the resource dependence theory (RDT).

The possession perspective views knowledge, more specifically what constitutes knowledge, as a resource since it is something that can be possessed: “treating knowledge as a distinct, self- sufficient entity that individuals and groups can possess, share, pass on, acquire, lose and recover” (Marshall and Rollinson, 2004, p. S73). For instance, when someone is said to have knowledge in a subject, this person is considered to have in his possession the resource

“knowledge” (Cook and Brown, 1999). Similar arguments have been made for the concept of power. For instance, Wilson (1997) highlights that “power is typically conceived as a resource to be possessed, a capacity, a property of actors, and not as an attribute of specific relationships”

(14)

9

(p. 198). Moreover, this resource could negatively affect communication if unequally distributed as it is external, constraining, distorting and allows domination to happen (Wilson, 1997).

As the possession perspective views knowledge and power as resources, a specific organizational theory comes to mind that also focuses on resources: the resource dependence theory. More specifically, this theory looks at an organization’s various dependencies as well as its environment by examining the organization’s behavior in the context of its surroundings (Hillman et al., 2009). Furthermore, an organization is considered to be interdependent and not autonomous as it is embedded in a network with other organizations. Indeed, as Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) mention, the concept of interdependence “exists whenever one actor does not entirely control all of the conditions necessary for the achievement of an action or for obtaining the outcome desired from the action” (p. 40). Additionally, Casciaro and Piskorski (2005) added a new dimension to this theory as they separated the concept of interdependence in two:

power imbalance (“the power differential between two organizations”) and mutual dependence (“the sum of their dependencies”) (p.168).

Power is usually in the center of the resource dependence theory as organizations try to control each other as well as reduce environmental dependencies and uncertainties (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). They achieve this by undergoing interorganizational arrangements such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A), cooptation, or some other form of contracts in order to secure resources and increase their control over all the actors’ activities (Hillman et al., 2009; Drees and Heugens, 2013; Malatesta and Smith, 2014; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). By applying a micro-perspective to this theory, it would then be possible to view the concepts of knowledge and power as resources that organizations try to secure.

Another similarity between the resource dependence theory and the possession view is that power dynamics, power imbalances and dependencies can be observed between consultants and their clients over particular resources such as power and knowledge. Indeed, Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012) identified three types of relationships: autonomy when the client has an active role compared to the consultant, dependency when the consultant has an active role, and finally, cooperative when both parties aim to collaborate. Also, they observed that these relationships had different levels of dependencies and who controlled the resources was not always the same. On the one hand, seeing consultants as experts gives them power over their clients (Davenport and Early, 2010) but on the other hand clients also possess knowledge over

(15)

10

their respective local markets which gives them power over the consultants (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012). In addition, Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012) observed that consultants do not always manage to share their expertise so that their clients properly implement their vision. Indeed, as power can be considered external, potentially constraining, distorting and allowing domination to happen, an imbalance in power distribution could negatively affect communication (Wilson, 1997). Consequently, as different power struggles are in place, we believe it would be interesting to keep resource dependence theory in mind when examining how these power dynamics connect to knowledge sharing between consultants and their clients.

2.3.2 Power and Knowledge as Part of the Action

The practice perspective views both concepts as relational, embedded in practice and part of the action (Marshall and Rollinson, 2004; Cook and Brown, 1999; Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012). For instance, Cook and Brown (1997) differentiate between “knowledge” that can be possessed (possession view) and “knowing” (practice view) that is “an aspect of our interaction with the social and physical world” (p. 381). In other words, knowing cannot be possessed but is rather part of an action embedded in the context in which it finds itself. Similarly, power can also be considered to be relational and embedded into practice as it cannot be separated from action and its complex set of relationships (Marshall and Rollinson, 2004; Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012; Foucault, 1980).

2.3.3 The Combined View

It is possible to combine both perspectives of possession, with hints of the resource dependence theory, and practice views, since the concepts of power and knowledge can be considered as resources as well as embedded in the action. Indeed, these two epistemological perspectives, are not exclusively contradictory but complementary as authors like Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012), as well as Cook and Brown (1999) point out. Both articles argue in favor of combining them as it may give a better picture of the situation. For instance, since “the interplay of knowledge and knowing can generate new knowledge and new ways of knowing”, combining them facilitates innovation (Cook and Brown, 1997, p. 381). Therefore, if this interplay facilitates new knowledge, it poses the question of how this new knowledge can be shared within that context.

In addition, this combined perspective does not go against the resource dependence theory mentioned above, if a micro-perspective is kept in mind. On the one hand, both concepts

(16)

11

become the resources consultants and clients need in order to survive in their environment. On the other hand, as both concepts are embedded in the action, the environment in which the consultants’ and clients’ relationships happen is important. Therefore, we will combine the two epistemologies in our study, and consider power and what constitutes knowledge to be a resource that can be possessed as well as being relational and embedded into practice.

2.4 Concepts to keep in mind

Having reviewed various theories in the previous sections, we will now present the ones that we believe are especially relevant and should be kept in mind. The following tables (Table 1 and Table 2) provide an overview of the key definitions we will use as an inspiration for analysing our empirical findings.

As power is a key concept for this thesis we intend to focus on various types of power as defined in Table 1. In order to identify “expert power” as described by French and Raven (1959) we will review the consultant's experience, background in the field as well as their expertise knowledge gained over the years. Other types of power are the “position power”, “personal power” (Davenport and Early, 2010) and “decision power” (Pfeffer, 1992). As a means to examine how consultants perceive these types of power we intend to focus on the ideas of hierarchy and identify who makes decisions within consultants’ and clients’ relationships. In addition, since Davenport and Early (2010) argue that whoever controls the information has power, we will also focus on control over information as a source of power and try to examine issues such as fear of losing control as well as resistance to share information. By viewing how the above perceived types of power are practiced in the different relationships we will be able to identify potential power shifts that emerge when new experts appear (Bourdieu, 1998), as well as power imbalances or mutual dependencies as described in the resource dependence theory (Casciaro and Piskorski, 2005).

Additionally, in this paper we will consider knowledge as an intangible asset which includes ideas such as information, skills, know-how as well as expertise (Staples and Webster, 2008;

Cummings, 2004) but also as a resource that can be possessed. Building upon this, knowledge sharing will be viewed as an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people (Cummings, 2004). Keeping in mind these ideas and also viewing knowledge as a part of action, we will focus on the challenges and issues that consultants and clients face throughout their collaboration as well as the cases and conditions where knowledge sharing was either successful or not.

(17)

12

Since both knowledge and power are inseparable according to Foucault (1980) and could be seen as resources that can be possessed as well as being relational and embedded in practice, it will be interesting to analyse their connection by bridging the epistemological views of possession and practice (Cook and Brown, 1997; Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012). In order to accomplish that and examine the conditions in which knowledge sharing takes place we will view the consultants’ and clients’ relationships as described in the Table 2 (dependency, autonomy, cooperation).

Table 1: Key theories around power dynamics and knowledge sharing

POWER DYNAMICS KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Expert power: administer to another information, knowledge, or expertise (Furusten and Werr 2016).

Knowledge: information, skills, know-how, expertise (Staples and Webster, 2008).

Could be considered as both a resource and part of action (Cook and Brown, 1997;

Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012).

Personal power: the potential influence between the person in power and the subordinate (Davenport and Early 2010).

Local knowledge: information provided by clients concerning the local context

(Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012).

Position power: authority that comes with an official job role

(Davenport and Early, 2010).

Expert knowledge: developed by

professionals and transferred to their clients (Canato and Giangreco, 2011; Kantola, 2009).

Decision power: the ability to participate in certain stages of the decision-making process (Pfeffer, 1992).

Knowledge sharing: an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people (Cummings, 2004).

Control: over resources (information), fear of losing control and resisting that control (Davenport and Early, 2010; Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012).

RDT: Interdependence which consists of power imbalance (difference in power between two organizations) and mutual dependence (summing their dependencies) (Casciaro and Piskorski, 2005).

(18)

13

Table 2: Three types of clients’ and consultants’ relationships according to Pozzebon and Pinsonneault (2012).

THREE TYPES OF CLIENT-CONSULTANT RELATIONSHIPS

Dependency Consultants are considered to be experts and clients have more of a passive role.

Clients tend to provide local information.

Here consultants are usually held responsible for the results of a project Autonomy Clients have an active role and consultants

are more passive (coach role). Clients are generally responsible for the results in these cases.

Cooperation Both consultants and clients have an active role as they aim to be partners. They usually share the responsibility of the results.

(19)

14

3. Methods

In the previous section, we have presented the existing scientific literature relevant to our research question. Here we will elaborate on our chosen method for the collection of the primary data and its implications. In addition, we will present how we coded our data and plan to analyse it.

3.1 Research Design

As previously mentioned, this study focuses on examining the possible connection between concepts such as knowledge sharing and power dynamics in the context of consultants’ and clients’ relationships. More specifically, we are looking at power dynamics as concepts that could potentially help or hinder the process of knowledge sharing. Although it is possible to look at both perspectives of consultants and clients, we have chosen to focus on interviewing consultants and therefore only analyse their perspective due to the study’s limited timeframe.

We have decided to approach the above subject by conducting a qualitative research inspired by an inductive perspective and guided by themes that emerge from our collected data (Bryman and Bell 2015). We believe that this approach is suitable and appropriate for this study since we are examining interactive processes between consultants’ and clients’ relationships. Since power dynamics, knowledge sharing as well as the concepts of power and knowledge may differ based on the superior-subordinate relationships and depend on the context of study, a flexible qualitative approach is more suitable to examine the different interpretations in words rather than numbers (Saunders et al., 2012; Bryman and Bell, 2015).

Although we started by reading the existing theories around our chosen subject to develop a research question, our intention was to be open and to let the empirics speak for themselves in order to generate findings, which is more in accordance with an inductive perspective (Bryman and Bell, 2015). That is, we started from the collected data and then identified patterns and possible relationships between our concepts to make our theoretical contribution and build on the existing theories as highlighted by Saunders et al. (2012).

(20)

15

3.2 Data Collection: semi-structured Interviews

3.2.1 Sampling

The method we have chosen for the collection of our primary data is semi-structured interviews with a non-probability form of sampling. We focused on choosing the interviewees based on criteria relevant to our research question such as them having some experience with our subject (Bryman and Bell, 2015; Saunders et al., 2012). As we had difficulties finding consultants that were willing to be interviewed due to their hectic schedules, once we made first contact, we used snowball sampling which consists of asking the interviewees for more contacts (Saunders et al., 2012). This method of sampling lifted the entrance and access barrier which helped us secure more interviews. However, there are some implications and biases from sampling in this manner (Saunders et al., 2012). For instance, when interviewees are asked to provide contacts, they are likely to recommend people that are similar to themselves and therefore only present a particular perspective on our subject. In order to avoid this bias, we have made several first contacts in different companies and therefore we had a variety of consultants that in turn, provided some of their contacts.

In particular, we have chosen to interview consultants that work in several companies so as to get a broader picture of our topic of research. Similarly, the size of the companies is quite different, ranging from large multinational firms to medium and small companies but we mostly contacted consultants in the Stockholm and Uppsala region for practical geographical reasons. Their fields of expertise are somewhat different and include management and strategy, implementation of IT systems, investment management, monetary benefits and international benefits. In addition, the interviewed consultants all have several years of experience in their fields, some having worked their whole lives as consultants. In this manner, we hoped that they would be familiar with the subject of our research as they would have had time to build relationships with their clients and could portray a wide range of examples and perspectives.

This way, we hope that the interviewed consultants will have relevant and interesting experiences to share with us for the purpose of this study.

All in all, we interviewed a total of eight consultants from five different companies where some of them belonged to the same firm. A more specific list of the data source can be found in the Appendix 1. Although our sample size is quite small, we continued interviewing consultants until we felt like we reached theoretical saturation as their answers started to sound familiar and no new elements appeared in the data (Saunders et al., 2012). In addition, as the sample is

(21)

16

small, we are conscious about needing to be careful with generalizations as it is not representative of the population (Saunders et al., 2012). In an effort to take into consideration the quality criteria of transferability, we will aim to have a detailed and in-depth description of our collected data. Although our sampling number is small, we hope that with thick description, we will achieve a big database that may be transferable and applicable to other situations and contexts (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

3.2.2 Interviewing Process

The chosen format for our interviews is semi-structured as it gives us some flexibility to improvise and ask for follow-up questions in order to avoid misunderstandings or ask more in- depth details (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Furthermore, since we are conducting a qualitative study, it is in our interest that the interviewees can talk lengthy about their experiences and observations. On the other hand, having some structure for the interviews allowed us to feel prepared and to not forget some possibly important questions and at the same time, this similarity between the questions made comparing the answers from different interviews easier (Bryman and Bell, 2015). The interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 1 hour and were conducted in English, so we did not need to translate their answers. In addition, the interviewees were not given the questions in advance in the hope to get spontaneous answers. However, we did inform them about our study and sent them some examples of questions we would ask so that they were not completely taken by surprise. The structured interview questions that we used can be found in the Appendix 2.

Most of the interviews were conducted in person, however, for three of the interviews, it was difficult to arrange a face to face meeting, hence we conducted them virtually; two of them through phone and one as a video conference. The disadvantage of not seeing each other during the interview is that it is impossible to read body language and therefore some misunderstanding may occur (Bryman and Bell, 2015). In contrast, although phone calls have that disadvantage, video calls are an improvement as we can see the other person. Even if this method could not replace face to face interaction, it does solve some of the issues that occur with phone calls and is a viable option (Lo Iacono et al., 2016).

In an effort to take into account the quality criteria of confirmability, we aimed to not overly allow personal values or theoretical inclinations overtake our judgement and findings although we are conscious that complete objectivity is impossible to achieve (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

Therefore, we tried avoiding questions that were maybe leading the interviewees to answer a

(22)

17

certain way as well as questions that could show what our standpoint was, in order to get their perspectives and not what they thought we wanted to hear.

We informed the participants of our study regarding its meaning and purpose as an ethical consideration (Bryman and Bell 2015). Since they play a significant role not only in the collection of data but also in the generation of results and conclusions, it is critical to respect their views, protect their anonymity and avoid distorting the meaning of their voices (Bryman and Bell 2015). In addition, we recorded all the interviews but not before asking them for permission. This facilitated the process of analysing the data in addition to making sure that we understood and remembered what they said correctly. Furthermore, we guaranteed anonymity for the interviewees since the subject of our study could be considered of a sensitive nature, and hence decided to not mention any names, companies or job titles.

3.3 Data Analysis

3.3.1 Grounded Theory

In order to analyse the collected data, we have used grounded theory as an inspiration, since we are studying people’s experiences and relationships. According to Bryman and Bell (2015) this approach aims to generate theory out of research data by achieving a close fit between the two. We believe that a similar strategy is appropriate for our study as we are trying to create meaning out of the data, by studying the process of collaboration between consultants and their clients and explaining how that process works in different relationships. Working closely with theory helped us when formulating different concepts used by the consultants in theoretically relevant terms (Gioia et al., 2012).

After collecting enough data in order to achieve theoretical saturation, we have also focused on the constant comparison of concepts in order to generate categories (Bryman and Bell, 2015). In order to discover and develop concepts such as power dynamics and knowledge sharing which are highly connected to people’s experiences, it “requires an approach that captures concepts relevant to the human organizational experience” (Gioia et al., 2012, p.16).

Even though grounded theory involves specific procedures for analysing the data, using it as an inspiration allows us to be flexible while covering all relevant aspects of our topic based on our theoretical understanding of the consultant’s terms and codes (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

(23)

18

3.3.2 Coding with 1st order concepts and 2nd order themes

Using Gioia’s (2012) approach of qualitative inductive research as an inspiration, we have decided to analyse the collected data by doing a 1st order analysis, using informant-centric terms and codes and a 2nd order analysis using researcher-centric concepts themes and dimensions. This method of coding enabled us to gain a better understanding of the information received from the consultants as well as make sense of how they perceive the concepts of power dynamics and knowledge sharing. As soon as we transcribed and read the interviews, we continued by categorizing the data and finding similarities and differences between the interviews and the open-ended questions. In the 1st order analysis we organized the collected data in multiple categories while describing these categories using the consultants’ terms and concepts such as long-term relationships and transparency. In the 2nd order analysis we then tried to find emerging themes and concepts, and group the categories that had similar content, using theoretical concepts and codes such as collaboration and resistance. For example, categories such as “clients decide whether to follow recommendations” and “decisions on resources put in the project” were grouped together to the theme of decision power.

The 1st and 2nd order analysis, presented in detail in the Data Structure (Appendix 3), demonstrates the links between the consultants’ terms and codes and our interpretation of themes and new concepts as mentioned by Gioia (2012). Having this “visual aid” facilitates in gaining a better understanding of raw data from the researcher’s perspective (Gioia, 2012) and will help us in presenting our empirical results. At this point it is essential to mention that we have revised the data structure throughout the coding process since we started the coding while still conducting interviews, therefore new categories were evolving while meeting new consultants.

In order to formulate the concepts that the consultants used in theoretically relevant terms, we asked questions describing their relationships with the clients, the process of collaborating with them as well as issues and outcomes of their work together. For the grounded theory analysis to be valid and credible it is essential to also analyse the causal conditions as well as consequences of the researched phenomenon. For example, when examining the element of resistance, we asked questions regarding challenges and issues they have encountered during their collaboration with clients as well as what caused these issues and how they solved them.

Another theme that emerged was knowledge sharing as an output which was described by the consultants using terms such as implementation of recommendations and learning from

(24)

19

feedback. As for the concept of power, we tried to ask general questions such as “How would you describe your relationships with your clients?”.

It is essential to highlight that throughout the data collection process, the consultants did not use the terms power or power dynamics, instead they used their own different terms and concepts. This concern was also mentioned by Gioia et al. (2012), however we chose not to use the concepts of power, power dynamics and knowledge sharing during the interviews and instead we posed more general questions in order not to miss key aspects of the consultants’

sensemaking of our topic (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2012). Therefore, while analysing our data we tried to figure out patterns, connect and translate the consultants’ terms and codes with our emerged themes.

3.3.3 Limitations and other Considerations

This research approach has limitations such as the risk of “going native” as highlighted by Gioia et al. (2012). To be more specific, there is always a possibility throughout the data collection and analysis process to adopt the views of the people being interviewed and “lose the higher-level perspective necessary for informed theorizing” (p. 19). Moreover, since we asked open-ended questions which did not contain “leading-the witness questions”, the coding process was challenging especially when we tried to find categories and link them into groups based on similar content. We needed to stay focused in our topic and context of study in order to generate relevant themes and empirical results.

It was also essential for us to code separately and independently the collected data in order to enhance the reliability of the study as Krippendorff (2004) argues. According to the Krippendorff’s alpha, “coders must be interchangeable, may code different subsamples of units of analysis” (p. 428). By doing so we were able to identify differences and similarities in the coding process and the emerged themes, as sometimes we might interpret and perceive the data differently as unique individuals. Throughout the coding process we tried to include all the different categories and explain to the best of our abilities, any sign of deviant cases, outliers or alternative explanations. That is to show our comprehension of the data in order for our account of an aspect of social reality to be both plausible and credible (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

Moreover, there were cases where some new data did not fit in the existing created categories, therefore we created new categories for them while also trying to code and analyse the data from both researchers’ perspective and distinguish these terms.

(25)

20

4. Empirical results

In this section, we will present our empirical results which will be organized in the following three main themes: consultants as experts, relational dynamics and knowledge sharing.

Although power is an important concept for our study, we are not presenting it in this section as none of the interviewees have explicitly mentioned the word power themselves to the exception of Interviewee 8 that links power and information.

4.1 Consultants as Experts

In the hope of better understanding the relationship between consultants and their clients, we asked at the beginning of each interview, questions regarding their role as consultants and what it is that they offer. When answering, all the interviewees recognised that they considered themselves to be experts to a certain degree, with expert knowledge and know-how. Although they all mentioned either the words experts or expertise, they also unanimously highlighted that this was not their only role. Furthermore, these roles were not always the same between the different interviewees. For instance, Interviewee 3 saw himself partly as a coach, an expert and a facilitator while Interviewee 4 described himself more of an expert and information provider. Other roles included being hired as extra resources for when manpower was needed by the clients. In addition, they emphasised that the roles depended on both the different projects they were currently on as well as which clients they were working with. That is, they were generally aware that they adapted their role to the situation and furthermore, it was judged important to be able to switch between different roles as well as knowing which one to assume in which situation:

“You need to be able to be that coach that facilitates and sometimes expert and know when to be what” (Interviewee 7)

Another aspect of being an expert is that the consultants often mentioned the knowledge that their clients had of their own local market and organization, and how this was crucial for a good collaborative process and successful results. One interviewee even used the term expert which is generally only employed in our context for consultants:

(26)

21

“Our view is that our customers are experts in their own business so they bring their specific knowledge of their business and we can bring them an overall knowledge since we work with customers in various branches” (Interviewee 7)

With this quote, we can see that this consultant recognises how important the client and their local knowledge is, as well as differentiates between the knowledge they provide and their client’s. However, not every consultant pointed out what the client’s role was, as they mostly focused on describing their own roles and expertise.

4.1.1 What do they Offer?

Concerning the questions about what their expertise and value-add was, the interviewees’

answers were relatively similar as they emphasised that their job consisted of helping their clients with various issues and problems by, for instance, giving them information, knowledge and new perspectives. More specifically, this knowledge could be technical expertise such as knowing how to achieve certain goals, strategic planning, intellectual capital, experience or how to make change happen. Other aspects that were especially highlighted by interviewees 1 and 6 were more of an intangible nature such as building a relationship with their clients and listening to their issues as well as drive and enthusiasm. Although, the consultants seemed to sometimes give more importance to different aspects of their work they all agreed that it was important to help their clients:

“It can be very different things but in the essence it’s that we help them with solving their problems and challenges.” (Interviewee 5)

Furthermore, consultants bring to their clients an external point of view which can be useful when, for instance, their clients have internal conflicts and do not seem to agree. Indeed, as Interviewee 2 mentioned, he was in a situation where he was hired to be a facilitator, give objective recommendations and talk to the different sides in order to reach some sort of consensus. In addition, one consultant mentioned that senior consultants have more responsibilities, are overseeing projects and make sure that everything goes well. This is not surprising as they have more experience and have faced different situations which is how they built their expertise; learning after each of their assignments with clients:

“You ask me before “do I learn something from every engagement?”, the answer is yes I do [...] We've gained an experience that experience is useful for us.” (Interviewee 3)

(27)

22

The majority of the interviewees emphasized the importance of having a network, being a part of the client, their “ecosystem” as well as their social system. More specifically, building and maintaining strong personal relationships with the clients was presented as mutually beneficial for both parties. Indeed, having a network seems to be helping the consultants with their future engagements or in case a client moves to another company. Moreover, it was also presented as a key asset that the consultants provide to their clients and building this network is a result of the interactions with the clients. Making sure to maintain it and keeping their client base updated is essential.

“They might ask me a question that I don't know the answer to it [...] I would like to think that through my network I would be able to answer that question for them [...]

that networking thing also allows you to add slightly different value to the client so I think that's quite powerful” (Interviewee 3)

Moreover, as Interviewee 2 highlights, consultants seem to have many opportunities to build networks as people from different industries and areas get together for conference calls, get access to knowledge databases and email lists. Another aspect that was considered important by some of the interviewees and is part of what they offer their clients, was that they not only give them advice and reports on how to change but they also help them with the implementation. Indeed, 3 out of the 8 interviewees highlighted that they prefer working together for the implementation and want to be part of the whole process.

“We give new perspectives, I would say, and it’s not only giving them mentally we also help them to implement it” (Interviewee 7)

4.1.2 Working with Consultants

In this section, we are focusing on aspects that emerge while consultants work with their clients such as who seems to have the most control over resources (time, budget, knowledge) as well as who is leading the different projects. Following, the consultants’ insights are presented on who makes decisions while working with clients and who is responsible for the projects’

results, in addition to which party influences the other on these subjects. Few mentioned the theme “control over resources” but through the different examples they gave us, we can identify it. For instance, we asked how easy or difficult it was to gain access to necessary information for the project’s success and the answers were quite varied. Some of the interviewees thought

(28)

23

that it could be challenging as they may not have all the information necessary or it is situated in different systems and therefore may take a lot of time to retrieve.

“Sometimes it’s very very hard to get data out of the client [...] that is typically a big problem. Not that they are not willing but it’s very complicated or it takes a lot of time because you have to do it on manual” (Interviewee 2)

As most of the consultants highlighted, the access to necessary clients’ information is a requirement in order to provide a suitable solution for the client’s problem. As mentioned earlier by Interviewee 2, clients are generally willing to give the necessary information.

Furthermore, other consultants such as Interviewee 7 have explained that with the help of confidentiality agreements, it was never a problem as clients would comply and give the data.

Another issue that was highlighted by Interviewee 1 was that sometimes, especially when working with big organizations, it is difficult to find the appropriate person to give the necessary data. Indeed, when there are many employees in the client’s organization, it can be challenging to know who to contact and therefore, he mentioned that having a senior employee that knows everyone could simplify the process of getting information.

“It can definitely be challenging, when you don’t have that senior person within the firm that sort of opens the door for you” (Interviewee 1)

Furthermore, time is another issue that consultants face when trying to retrieve the data necessary for their projects. It is both time in the sense that it can take while retrieving it as mentioned above but also as a broader resource. It can happen that the employees assigned by the clients from within their organization do not have the time to both work with the consultants on the project but also fulfilling their regular daily duties. In those cases, it can be difficult to collaborate on the project when one party does not have time or when it is difficult to find the

“right person”. Interviewee 1 argued that moving up or down the hierarchy may help.

“You have to have someone quite senior to tell them: “ok the consultant needs your help and he needs it now” [...] then you have to sort of climb the ladder upwards or downwards” (Interviewee 1)

Contrary to most of the other consultants we interviewed, interviewee 8 highlighted that getting access to the data may be difficult as the clients would rather not provide the information.

(29)

24

Indeed, he argues that some clients are not willing as they may fear a loss of power by revealing their hidden problems.

“That's also a typical area where you can meet a lot of resistance because data is power, information is power [...] maybe they are not so happy with sharing all the data because they know that we will find out that there are these problems and you can hear arguments like well that is secret information we can’t provide you with or this we don’t know, or this is too complicated to find out” (Interviewee 8)

Another aspect that was mentioned by our interviewees is the fact that generally, the clients are the ones deciding how many resources they are using for a particular project. This includes the budget, the time spent by their employees and how many of them should participate. Although the clients seem to be more in control here as it is their organization, the consultants are hired to help them and therefore may have a say in their decision. For instance, one interviewee mentioned that he was part of a steering committee, although he does not decide for them, he does give them advice.

“Not that we are going to decide anything [...] But also now to give advice to the top management in the Steering committee” (Interviewee 2)

Consultants also answered the question “Who do you think is leading the projects?” and according to them, the leading role depends on the project, the needs of the client, the internal structure of the client’s company as well as the purpose and scope of the project. More specifically, 5 out of 8 consultants argued that in most cases it is their role to lead the projects.

However, in cases where the clients have already decided what they want to do, have a clear view on the ways to do it and provide strict instructions to the consultants, then the clients “are clearly leading it” according to Interviewee 2. Interviewee 7 argued that leading the process is a co-venture between clients and consultants. Similarly, Interviewee 3 seems to agree that in some projects: “they sort of half lead it, we sort of half lead”. Despite the aspect of leading different projects, a lot of emphasis was given on who makes decisions. In fact, we could see that in many occasions the consultants needed to go back to the clients in order to get their approval as the clients are the ones deciding:

“It's a lot of us leading it because they come to us and trust us to know it, so we bring it forward and whenever we need a decision or something we go back to them.[...] in

(30)

25

the end it's the client's decisions on things, we deliver our opinions and our thoughts and then they choose what they want to do..” (Interviewee 6)

Furthermore, the majority of the interviewees highlighted that it is the clients’ decision if they want to continue with the implementation of the consultant’s strategy or follow their recommendations. They clearly stated that it is the clients’ responsibility to make decisions since its their own business, which indicated the client’s ability to determine the direction the project.

“The client has to decide everything right? it's their business.” (Interviewee 2)

However, clients are not the only ones deciding how a project is going to move ahead.

According to the interviewees, although most of the decisions are taken by the clients, consultants also get to choose whether or not to engage with a client based on their values and common understanding as mentioned:

“I think it's very important to have some kind of common ground when it comes to values and how you think about business, I would have problems, for example, doing business with gambling institutions [...] we don't choose to work with them because we're not really getting involved in that type of business” (Interviewee 8)

According to some consultants there have been cases where they ended up disagreeing with their clients regarding the goals, the purpose of the project or even the working process. In these cases, the consultants get to decide whether or not to continue working with the client.

As Interviewee 7 argues, if they face issues such as misunderstandings, lack of communication and meetings, mismatches on the perception on what is needed to be done, then the consultants cannot be a “good support” and hence they choose not to proceed with the project. Other times, the consultants are involved in “change programmes” which constitute of various projects and different people responsible for them. Therefore, they might not entirely lead the working process or even have a say when it comes to decisions since they are a small part of that programme. As Interviewee 8 argues, in a similar case the consultants have a relationship with the programme officer, but they feel like “playing figures”. They might be entitled to do something that they do not agree upon or even feel bad about the whole project which does not add value for neither of the parties. However, even though different challenges emerge, some

(31)

26

interviewees referred to their concern when it comes to balancing the client’s and their decisions. It is all about knowing how far one should try convincing their clients.

“So for us it's always a balance on how much we should push the client on doing the approach we think is right [...] it's a fine line, telling them our opinion and pushing for it” (Interviewee 6)

After viewing the consultants’ insights on who has the control over resources, who leads the projects and who makes decisions, we have also examined the consultants’ perspective on who is responsible for the results of a project. Even though the decisions are taken by both consultants and clients, the majority of the interviewees take full responsibility over the results.

More specifically, 5 out of 8 consultants stated that they feel responsible in delivering what they promised and making sure that what they deliver is good whether they control the project or not (Interviewee 3). Some consultants argued that the consultant’s and the client’s responsibility is two-sided since the clients are also responsible to inform them accordingly regarding their expectations and needs.

4.2 Relational Dynamics

In this section we will present our empirics related to the relationships and their dynamics between the consultants and their clients. More precisely we noticed that collaboration and resistance were recurrent themes amongst our interviewees and will be shown below.

4.2.1 Collaboration

Collaboration was a recurrent theme that all the interviewees mentioned as they argued that by collaborating with their clients they could build long-lasting relationships based on trust, honesty, transparency and integrity. Although these ingredients were seen as important for a good relation, not all consultants mentioned all of them and to the same degree. For instance, Interviewee 1 emphasised the concept of trust while Interviewee 3, in addition to trust, mentioned delivering what was promised and managing expectations.

Furthermore, Interviewee 1 described his relationship with clients as being informal and somewhat similar to a family as they work closely, know each other well and are treated as part of the client’s organization. In addition, he explains their clients are often old clients, and their

Connecting Power Dynamics and Knowledge Sharing within Consultants’ and Clients’ Relationships