Tacit Knowledge

Fundamentals

Prompted by Polanyi’s famous aphorism, “We can know more than we can tell,” discussions of tacit knowledge in the management literature have pointed toward people’s inability to articulate what they know or their never having done so (even if they could) as the defining characteristic of tacit knowledge. Although inarticulability or nonexplicitness frequently characterizes tacit knowledge, neither is the general criterion for qualifying knowledge as tacit in Polanyi’s presentation. The essential consideration defining knowledge as tacit is that the knower draws upon the knowledge subsidiarily (i.e., nonfocally) in cognitive and physical activity. By definition, knowledge that is used subsidiarily is tacit.

The appropriate descriptor for the category of knowledge that contrasts with tacit knowledge is not codified, articulated, theoretical, or explicit, which indicate knowledge that has been put into words or written symbols. Neither is the appropriate label codifiable, articulable, or explicable, which indicates the potential for people to render knowledge in words or writing. The complement to tacit knowledge—telling us what tacit knowledge is not—is focal knowledge. Thus, the characterization of knowledge as tacit turns on how it is used, not on whether it has been verbalized or codified or on the difficulty of verbalizing or codifying it.

When we humans attend to knowledge expressed in verbal or written form, we do so on the basis of personal background knowledge. Although our focus is on what a speaker or document expresses, our interpretation draws upon our background understanding of words and contexts. Likewise, the act of speaking or writing expresses some aspect of a person’s knowledge, yet it relies upon subsidiary knowledge. When people express, receive, or put to use knowledge, tacit knowledge always is involved.

Many actions make no direct use of formulaic (verbal or written) knowledge. Humans simply act, and we demonstrate our knowledge through our performances. The focus of our attention is on performing within a particular situation, and we have no need to consider directly or articulate the knowledge implicit in our action. When we humans act [Page 822]skillfully, we rely upon knowledge already internalized through practice. We give no consideration to how or whether this knowledge could be expressed in words or symbols; such considerations are irrelevant. People could attempt to put this subsidiary knowledge into words, but doing so is a fundamentally different activity from the skillful performance itself. Whereas in doing the activity, our focus is on performing within the situation (i.e., doing the task at hand), when we want to identify and articulate the knowledge involved, we shift to a reflective stance focused on how we perform.

...