Ei saa ju kindel olla, kuid paljud organisatsioonid võivad olla huvitatud sellest, kuidas disainida organisatsiooni teadmiste struktuuri, st kuidas kujundada võrgustik, et asjakohased teadmised oleksid osalistele kättesaadavad ja pidevas arengus ning töötajad motiveeritud uusi teadmisi koguma ja neid jagama. Sestap siinviidatu oma koha leidiski. Tõsi, tekst on nii teoreetiliste arenduste kui empiiria ning tervikdisaini tähenduses nii kõrge kvaliteediga, et kandideerib juhtimiskursusel (magistriõppes) seminaritekstiks.
Artikkel võiks huvi pakkuda kõikidele juhtimisega puutumuses olevatele, sh valitsejatele-poliitikutele.
Knowledge is the primary resource of many modern organizations (Grant, 1996a; Kogut & Zander, 1996; Powell & Snellman, 2004). However, it is a resource that is distributed across the individuals who form an organization. Thus, an organization’s ability to integrate knowledge, i.e. to combine differentiated but complementary knowledge, constitutes a critical source of competitive advantage (Carlile, 2004; Grant, 1996b).
Gruppidevahelise teadmuse olulisus:
In other words, intergroup knowledge integration is of critical importance for organizations operating in such conditions (Singh, 2008). We understand intergroup knowledge integration as a dyadic relation between two groups in which one group – the recipient group – acquires, processes, and utilizes knowledge stemming from another group – the source group – in their own work.
Organisatsiooni teadmiste struktuuri selgroog:
The network of intergroup knowledge integration relationships among organizational groups in turn constitutes the backbone of an organization’s knowledge architecture which critically contributes to organizational performance in knowledge intensive organizations (Balkundi and Harrison, 2006; Tsai, 2001; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998).
Mis on metateadmine?
First, it has been shown repeatedly that collective mobilization and integration of non-redundant knowledge are greatly facilitated by individual metaknowledge, that is, knowledge of who knows what (Argote and Ren, 2012; Lewis, 2003; Ren and Argote, 2011; Richter et al., 2012; Wegner, 1987). Specifically, members with a particularly high level of metaknowledge about their groups have been shown to have a disproportionate impact on knowledge mobilization and integration within groups (Mell et al., 2014). […] Building on group information processing literature, we propose individuals’ metaknowledge, i.e., knowledge of who knows what, as a critical ability factor facilitating knowledge mobilization and knowledge integration (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Hinsz et al., 1997; Ren and Argote, 2011; Wegner, 1987).
Teadmiste tähendusest organisatsioonis: saatan peitub detailides.
Transactive memory system theory posits that groups develop collective systems for encoding, storing, and retrieving knowledge (Argote and Ren, 2012; Hollingshead, 2001; Wegner, 1987). The structural backbone of transactive memory systems is formed by members’ specialized knowledge and their metaknowledge, i.e. their knowledge about who knows what in the group (Lewis, 2003; Wegner, 1995).
Accordingly, our results suggest that where high metaknowledge and boundary spanning activity coincide, groups are in a better position to benefit from each other’s knowledge. Such alignment can be achieved via two routes. The first route involves groups’ identifying their internal knowledge coordinators and encouraging these members to engage in informational boundary spanning, for instance by formulating boundary spanning as an explicit role of these members (Marrone et al., 2007). The second route involves identifying which members currently are engaged in boundary spanning and developing these members’ metaknowledge in order to increase their effectiveness as intergroup liaisons.
Mell, J. N., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Heugens, P. P. (2022). From Boundary Spanning to Intergroup Knowledge Integration: The Role of Boundary Spanners’ Metaknowledge and Proactivity. Journal of Management Studies