Chapter 2: Understanding Knowledge: Forms and Dynamics#

If you’ve ever tried to explain how to ride a bike, you already know that knowledge isn’t just a stack of facts. Some things we can put into words easily; others live in our muscles and instincts. In this chapter, we’ll explore what knowledge really looks like in organizations. It’s not a tidy filing cabinet; it’s more like a living, changing landscape. Getting this right is the foundation for a meaningful knowledge audit.

The Big Picture#

Before we can audit knowledge, we have to understand what it is and how it behaves. Too often, people use simple labels — “tacit” and “explicit” — and stop there. But that either/or view misses a huge middle ground. It also leads to a risky idea: that we can just turn one form into the other without losing anything. In reality, knowledge sits on a sliding scale, shaped by context, the body, and culture. This chapter gives you a richer set of words and mental models to see how knowledge actually moves through individuals, teams, and whole organizations. By the end, you’ll see why the “missing middle” of team knowledge is often the key to a successful audit.

Beyond the Tacit–Explicit Trap: A Continuum of Knowledge#

A common starting point is to split knowledge into two types: tacit knowledge (what we know but can’t easily say) and explicit knowledge (what we can write down or put into words). This split feels neat, but it’s a trap. It makes us think knowledge is either completely hidden or completely out in the open, with nothing in between. Real life is much messier.

Think of a skilled chef. The explicit knowledge is the recipe: ingredient amounts, temperatures, steps. The tacit knowledge includes the chef’s feel for when dough is “just right,” the flick of the wrist that flips a pancake, or the instinct to add a pinch of salt without measuring. But between these poles, there’s a vast space: the chef knows why the dough should rest for exactly 20 minutes, and could explain it if asked, even though the recipe didn’t spell it out. That’s not fully tacit, but it’s not written down either.

Tacit knowledge: Personal, hard-to-articulate know-how rooted in experience, intuition, and physical skill. It often resists being put into words.

Explicit knowledge: Knowledge that has been captured in language, symbols, formulas, or other formal representations — easily shared and stored.

The trap of the two-type split is that it encourages us to treat all non-explicit knowledge as mysterious and out of reach. But much of what organizations need to audit sits in that in-between zone. Recognizing a sliding scale — from deeply embodied, unconscious knowing to fully written-down information — lets us ask better questions during an audit.

📝 Section Recap: The tacit–explicit split is too blunt. Knowledge exists along a sliding scale, and ignoring the middle leads to blind spots in auditing.

Implicit Knowledge: The Middle Ground That Matters#

The term implicit knowledge describes knowledge that isn’t written down but can be brought out with the right question. It’s the “you know it when you’re asked” kind of knowledge. For example, a customer-service representative might not have a written script for every complaint, but when a rare issue comes up, she can explain her reasoning step by step. That knowledge was implicit — ready to surface — not deeply tacit like a reflex.

This is a big deal for auditing. If you only look at people’s explicit knowledge (documents, databases) and treat everything else as “tacit” and off-limits, you miss a huge chance. Many audit techniques — interviews, storytelling, process mapping — are designed exactly to pull out implicit knowledge. They create the right conditions for people to put into words what they hadn’t yet expressed.

Implicit knowledge: Knowledge that a person or group has but hasn’t yet written down. It can be explained when prompted, without the deep, embodied resistance of true tacit knowledge.

Consider a software developer who always structures her code in a particular pattern. She’s never written a design document explaining it, but when a junior colleague asks why, she can talk through the principles clearly. That pattern was implicit; the conversation made it explicit. If we treat it as tacit, we might assume it’s impossible to put into words and not even try to capture it.

📝 Section Recap: Implicit knowledge is the bridge between what’s hidden and what’s written. It’s the most fertile ground for knowledge audits because careful questioning can bring it to the surface.

Why Tacit Knowledge Can’t Be Converted (and What That Means for Audits)#

A well-known model in knowledge management is Nonaka’s SECI model. It describes how knowledge supposedly “converts” between tacit and explicit forms through four steps: Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization. The model spread the idea that tacit knowledge can be turned into explicit knowledge. But this goes against the original thinking of Michael Polanyi, who came up with the term “tacit knowledge.”

Polanyi argued that we always know more than we can say. Tacit knowledge isn’t just unspoken; it’s built into the way we make sense of the world, so it can’t be fully put into words. When you recognize a friend’s face in a crowd, you can’t list the features you used — your knowing is in the act of seeing, not in a set of rules. Trying to turn that into explicit instructions destroys the very thing you’re trying to capture. You can describe some aspects, but you can’t turn the knowing itself into a recipe.

In organizations, this means something important: you can’t fully turn a master craftsperson’s touch, a leader’s gut sense of timing, or a negotiator’s feel for the room into a set of instructions. You can record stories, write guidelines, and build training simulations, but those are new explicit items — not a conversion of the original tacit knowledge. They are copies, not the real thing.

For auditing, this means we must accept the limits of what can be written down. An audit shouldn’t try to “convert” all tacit knowledge. Instead, it should map where tacit knowledge lives, how it’s shared (often through apprenticeship, working together, or watching), and what helps it flow. Accepting that some knowledge will always stay personal and in the body keeps our audit honest and stops us from chasing illusions.

📝 Section Recap: Tacit knowledge cannot be converted to explicit without losing its essence. Audits must identify and support the sharing of tacit knowledge rather than trying to turn it into documents.

Richer Ways to Map Knowledge: Collins and Blackler#

If the tacit–explicit sliding scale is still too simple, what better maps do we have? Two frameworks are especially useful for auditing.

Collins’ three types of tacit knowledge help us see that what we lump together as “tacit” actually has different roots:

Relational tacit knowledge (implicit): Knowledge that is only unspoken because of the social situation. We haven’t needed to say it, but we could if the right person asked or the right moment came. This is basically implicit knowledge.

Somatic tacit knowledge: Knowledge held in the body — muscle memory, physical skills, reflexes. A surgeon’s hands know things that words can’t fully capture.

Collective tacit knowledge: Knowledge woven into the shared habits and unwritten rules of a group. It’s how a jazz band knows when to take a solo, or how a team senses when a meeting should end. It belongs to the group, not one person.

This breakdown is a powerful tool for audits. When you ask “where is the tacit knowledge in this process?” you can now tell: is it in individual bodies (somatic), in unspoken social agreements (collective), or just waiting to be voiced (relational/implicit)? Each type needs a different audit approach — watching for somatic, group discussion for collective, and structured interviews for relational.

Blackler’s five knowledge types take a different slice, focusing on where knowledge is located and how it shows up in organizations:

• Embrained knowledge: Abstract, conceptual knowledge that depends on thinking skills — knowing-that. It’s what experts use when they reason from principles.
• Embodied knowledge: Action-oriented, practical know-how — knowing-how. It’s tied to physical action and doing.
• Encultured knowledge: Shared understandings and cultural meanings that come from language and socializing. It’s what makes an organization feel like “us.”
• Embedded knowledge: Knowledge that lives in routines, technologies, roles, and formal procedures. It’s the “way things are done around here” built into systems.
• Encoded knowledge: Information expressed in symbols, signs, and data — books, manuals, databases, code.

Blackler’s types remind us that an audit must look in many places: in people’s heads (embrained), in their bodies (embodied), in their shared stories (encultured), in their processes and tools (embedded), and in their documents (encoded). If your audit only lists documents, you’re seeing just one-fifth of the picture.

📝 Section Recap: Collins and Blackler give us finer lenses that go beyond the simple tacit–explicit split. They help auditors ask sharper questions about where knowledge lives and how it’s held.

Know-How and Know-That: Two Sides of a Coin#

Philosophers have long distinguished between knowing-how (practical skill) and knowing-that (factual knowledge). You might know that a bicycle stays upright because of gyroscopic forces and trail geometry (know-that), but that doesn’t mean you can ride one (know-how). Conversely, you can ride beautifully without knowing a shred of physics.

These two forms can’t be reduced to each other. You can’t turn a skill into a list of facts without losing the skill, and you can’t figure out practical ability from facts alone. In organizations, job descriptions that list “knowledge of X” often miss the point. An employee who knows the safety rules by heart (know-that) may still freeze in a real emergency (know-how).

For auditing, we need to check both. A knowledge inventory that counts certificates and training records captures know-that. But to understand know-how, we need to watch people do their work, listen to their stories of practice, and look at the settings where skills are learned and used. The two forms work together, but they need different audit methods.

📝 Section Recap: Know-how and know-that are distinct and cannot replace each other. A complete audit must investigate both factual knowledge and practical skill.

Personal, Team, and Organizational Knowledge: The Missing Middle#

Knowledge doesn’t just vary in form; it also varies in scale. We can think of three levels: personal, team, and organizational. Each has its own character and way of working.

Personal knowledge is what one person carries — their skills, experiences, mental models, and gut feelings. It’s very flexible, because one person can quickly adapt to new situations. But it’s also hard to see from the outside. You can’t open someone’s head and read their knowledge like a book. Personal knowledge is the raw material of organizational ability, but it’s fragile: if the person leaves, the knowledge leaves too.

Team knowledge appears when a group works closely together. It’s not just the sum of what each person knows. Teams develop shared mental models, a sense of who knows what (sometimes called transactive memory), and routines for combining their know-how. Team knowledge is easier to observe than personal knowledge — you can watch a team coordinate, listen to their shorthand, and see who turns to whom for what. This level is often the “missing middle” in knowledge audits. Many audits focus on individual skills or organization-wide databases, skipping the team as a unit. Yet it’s at the team level that personal knowledge gets combined, put into words, and turned into action. Teams use metacognitive strategies — they think about how they think together — to decide when to bring out implicit knowledge, when to rely on routines, and when to invent new approaches.

Organizational knowledge is knowledge that has become routine, built into structures, and scaled beyond any one person or team. It includes standard procedures, company culture, brand identity, and the memory stored in policies and systems. This knowledge is very durable and can be scaled up, but it’s less flexible. Changing a deeply rooted organizational routine can be like turning a big ship.

The “missing middle” of team knowledge is critical because it bridges the personal and the organizational. A brilliant idea from one person rarely becomes an organizational strength without the team processes that check, refine, and translate it. Likewise, organizational orders don’t make much sense until teams interpret them and adapt them to their own context. An audit that ignores the team level will miss the gears that actually move knowledge up and down the scale.

📝 Section Recap: Personal, team, and organizational knowledge form a chain. The team level is the often-overlooked bridge where combining and putting into words happens, making it a vital focus for audits.

How Knowledge Integrates Across Levels#

If knowledge lives at different scales, how does it move and combine? Knowledge integration mechanisms are the ways that individual know-how comes together to create group output. Research points to four main types, which differ in how much they rely on formal rules versus on-the-spot coordination:

• Rules and directives: Simple, standard instructions that need little talking. “If X happens, do Y.” Useful for routine situations where everyone already knows what to do.
• Sequencing: Organizing work so that each person’s part comes in at a planned point, cutting down the need for real-time coordination. An assembly line is a classic example.
• Routines: Repeated patterns of working together that team members develop over time. Unlike strict rules, routines allow some improvisation within a familiar structure. A surgical team has routines for standard procedures but can adapt when problems come up.
• Group problem-solving: When things are new or tricky, teams must actively talk, negotiate, and create solutions together. This is the most communication-heavy method and draws a lot on personal and implicit knowledge.

These mechanisms fit different levels. At the organizational scale, rules and routines are common because they can be written down and scaled up. At the team level, routines and problem-solving are more common, since they need the shared context that teams have. At the personal level, integration happens inside one mind — but even then, individuals often absorb routines and rules to free up mental space for creative problem-solving.

For a knowledge auditor, mapping which integration mechanisms are used where is extremely useful. It shows how knowledge actually flows (or gets stuck) between personal insight and organizational routine. If a team always uses problem-solving for every task, they may be reinventing the wheel and failing to capture reusable knowledge. If an organization leans too much on rigid rules, it may squash the adaptive personal knowledge that could lead to new ideas.

📝 Section Recap: Knowledge integrates through rules, sequencing, routines, and problem-solving. Understanding these mechanisms helps auditors see how knowledge moves across personal, team, and organizational levels.

Summary#

We’ve seen that knowledge in organizations is much more than a simple split between “tacit” and “explicit.” It’s a sliding scale with a vital middle ground of implicit knowledge, and it comes in many forms — embodied, encultured, embedded, and more. We’ve challenged the idea that tacit knowledge can be neatly turned into documents, and we’ve explored how knowledge lives at personal, team, and organizational scales, with the team level often acting as the crucial translator. With these distinctions, you’re now ready to look at any organization and ask: where is the knowledge, what form is it in, and how does it move? That’s the starting point for a knowledge audit that truly sees what’s there.