2012
DOI: 10.1108/01425451211236814
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Knowledge management, tolerance of ambiguity and productivity

Abstract: PurposeThe aim of this research is to investigate the influence of hybrid knowledge management in workers' productivity and tolerance of ambiguity.Design/methodology/approachThe research was conducted before and after the implementation of the Communication and Knowledge Motivator (CKM) model in Hellenic Railways Organization (2004 and 2008). Survey data were collected from 352 workers. In the first phase (2004), workers' productivity, ambiguity tolerance and demographical characteristics were examined. In the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Individuals are not passive recipients of change uncertainty and ambiguity. Quite the opposite, they vigorously react to what is happening in their work environment (Tsirikas et al, 2012). As a result, employee readiness to change is defined as the employee belief in the benefits from a proposed change effort (Jones et al, 2005) and/or as the extent to which individuals are mentally, psychologically, or physically prepared to participate in organizational development efforts (Hanpachren, 1997).…”
Section: Employee Readiness To Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individuals are not passive recipients of change uncertainty and ambiguity. Quite the opposite, they vigorously react to what is happening in their work environment (Tsirikas et al, 2012). As a result, employee readiness to change is defined as the employee belief in the benefits from a proposed change effort (Jones et al, 2005) and/or as the extent to which individuals are mentally, psychologically, or physically prepared to participate in organizational development efforts (Hanpachren, 1997).…”
Section: Employee Readiness To Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The direct and unmediated effect of KM (b = 0.26, t = 4.66) and EI (b = 0.11, t = 2.40) on librarian productivity was also confirmed in technical tests as well as in the final model (Figure 2). Although these relationships have been examined in the previous studies (Khan et al, 2017;Tsirikas et al, 2012;Vendrell-Herrero et al, 2019), the effect of KM (b = 0.26) on librarian productivity was surprisingly greater than the effect of EI (b = 0.11) on their productivity in the newly identified paths. It appears that the more public libraries support KM development (as an organizational variable), the greater is its role compared to supporting EI (as an individual variable).…”
Section: H7mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Although several studies have addressed KM and its implications in public libraries, it seems that studying the effect of KM on librarian JM and JF or its direct and indirect effects on productivity are left critically under-researched. A few studies conducted in other organizations have proved the significant effect of KM on staff productivity (Tsirikas et al, 2012;Vendrell-Herrero et al, 2019), JM (Fernandes, 2018;McGurk and Baron, 2012) and JF. However, such studies have not received much attention in LIS; an apparent gap exists in this field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…efficiency, productivity) outcomes (Goldhar and Lei, 1995;Li, 2000;Li et al, 2005;Rudd et al, 2007;Tan and Peng, 2003). Further, empirical findings suggest that organizational members' ambiguity tolerance may influence positively their level of productivity (Tsirikas et al, 2012). Similarly, other researchers claim that managers with high ambiguity/uncertainty tolerance may exhibit higher performance in new and complex situations (Jonassen and Grabowski, 1993;Sawyer, 1990); and in parallel, that their performance is a major determinant of the success of an organization (Fiedler, 1996;Thorlindsson, 1987).…”
Section: Organizational Performancementioning
confidence: 96%