Enabling Knowledge Creation

Krogh, Georg von; Ichijo, Kazuo; Nonaka, Ikujiro

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195126167.001.0001

Cited by 1,020 publications

(446 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

417

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By taking this position we do not imply that only knowledge that is conscious and valued is relevant to knowledge transfer. Some knowledge is not communicable and some only exchangeable by face to face practical working (Von Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka 2000;Birkinshaw, Nobel & Ridderstrale 2002). Reber (1993), following the line of Polanyi (1964), points out that tacit knowledge is often unconscious knowledge because it is contained within practice and is therefore only communicable indirectly through demonstration (e.g.…”

Section: Knowledge and The Notion Of Possessivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of indicators of willingness in the knowledge transfer process

Héliot

Riley

2010

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on knowledge transfer is confident in its assertion that a ‘stickiness’ pervades knowledge disclosure process. This phenomenon is often attributed to structural communication barriers but an equally valid explanation could stem from the individual feeling a sense of ownership of their knowledge which then engenders a reluctance to be open about their knowledge within a formal knowledge transfer process. We pursue this idea theoretically through notions of possessiveness and psychological ownership; and empirically by exploring the concept of willingness to disclose. Assuming willingness to be unidimensional a methodology is put forward that uses indicators to measures its direction. Using a sample of 1050 UK engineers we illustrate the direction of willingness on a reluctance–willing dimension. We argue that knowledge transfer requires management to examine more closely the stimuli that affect the process.

show abstract

Section: Knowledge and The Notion Of Possessivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of indicators of willingness in the knowledge transfer process

Héliot

Riley

2010

Journal of Management & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tasks have become increasingly complex, ambiguous and knowledge intensive, another factor that constrains the monitoring capacity of managers (Tyler, 2003). At the same time, organisational performance is more and more dependent on employee behaviours such as exploring opportunities, knowledge sharing, helping colleagues and heedful interrelating (Bijlsma-Frankema et al, n.d.;Von Krogh, 1998;Weick and Roberts, 1993). Since command and control styles of governance are less suitable to promote these extra-role behaviours, hierarchy can be less relied upon to bring these behaviours about (Kramer, 1996;Tyler, 2003).…”

Section: Developments Within Organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Managerial governance can enable knowledge creation in several ways, of which care is a central means. Care, broadly defined as "serious attention, a feeling of concern and interest" is a key factor for employees in shifting from "self-commitment" to "other-commitment" (Von Krogh, 1998). Besides, care promotes high levels of trust in horizontal and vertical relations needed for successful sharing of tacit knowledge and knowledge creation (Creed and Miles, 1996;Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).…”

Section: Dismal Paradox Of Bureaucracymentioning

confidence: 99%

The oxymoron of control in an era of globalisation

Bijlsma-Frankema

Koopman

2004

Journal of Managerial Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to developments around as well as within organisations, managers are faced with a control-commitment dilemma. A new rationality of governance has emerged besides the well-known rationality of bureaucratic control. This new set of governance strategies, which is presented under different labels such as commitment-based management or trust-based governance, is directed at access to and leverage of intangible resources like employee commitment, tacit knowledge and learning behaviours. In this special issue, six studies are presented that address the subject of how top management teams deal with this control-commitment dilemma and the intended or unintended consequences of choices made. IntroductionThe focus of this special issue is on managerial control strategies, the managerial beliefs on which these strategies are based and the effects of these strategies on the functioning of organisations. Top managers have to deal with fast changing demands posed on the organisation by external parties, market conditions and societal developments, which often create cross-pressures that are not easy to deal with in a straightforward mode. The strategies employed to deal with these conditions also affect the internal governance structure and the effectiveness of internal relations between actors. A central issue of strategic choice is the problem of control. While top managers often believe that centralised decision-making and command and control strategies are the best way to secure high performance, especially in times of turbulence and instances of organisational crisis (Cameron et al., 1987;Mishra, 1996;Pfeffer, 1978), they also experience that control is harder to gain than ever before. Market predictability has decreased, customer demands regarding quality and cost efficiency have risen, and competition has become increasingly intensive and global in character. As a consequence, competitive advantage is increasingly dependent on alliances with other firms and on intangible, potentially high mobile resources, like consumer trust, employee commitment and innovative capacities, which are hard to manage by command and control strategies.In response to these developments, a new rationality of governance has emerged besides the well-known rationality of bureaucratic control. A new set of governance strategies, directed at access to and leverage of intangible resources like employee commitment, tacit knowledge and learning behaviours, promises to be more effective in promoting organisational flexibility and innovativeness. Different terms are used to denominate the new rationality, such as organic regime (Burns and Stalker, 1961), commitment-based management (Walton and Hackman, 1986), trust-based governance (Powell, 1996), clan control (Ouchi, 1979), value-based control (Eisenhardt, 1985 and social control (Das and Teng, 1998). It can be expected that given this new paradigm of

show abstract

“…These include a lack of time or insufficient motivation for KM, lead to stock-piling of knowledge and exertion of power [Ambr00; Nort99]. Furthermore, insufficient budgets and the small scale of some projects belong into the category of organizational barriers [Ambr00], as well as limiting organizational paradigms and traditions [Schü96;VKro98] 2. Hansen, Nohira and Tierney [Han + 99] as well as Sveiby [Svei01] claim that failure of IT-based KM-systems is due to the fact that organizations employ either codification or personalization strategies in KM, where they ideally should be doing both.…”

Section: Paradigmatic Views On Shortcomings In Kmmentioning

confidence: 99%