Successful knowledge management in high‐sociability organizations

Abstract

Depending on the type of business, the core activity of knowledge management can take different forms. An analysis of high‐sociability organizations shows that in those enterprises, second‐generation knowledge management—which emphasizes the role of groups, such as communities of practice—appears to be well matched to the way in which those entities function. Using a two‐dimensional framework based on sociability and solidarity, this study focuses on the links between high‐sociability organizations and knowledge management. Its conclusions point to three broad actions that high‐sociability organizations can undertake to manage knowledge more effectively: fostering a culture of knowledge sharing, nurturing interpersonal relationships, and creating appropriate organizational structures.

Does lead userness matter for electric vehicle adoption? An integrated perspective of social capital and domain‐specific innovativeness

“…Shared goals describe individuals' ability to construct a corresponding network system through shared languages, rules and expressions, which can considerably reduce the possibility of perceptual barriers (Chow & Chan, 2008;Hau & Kang, 2016). By maintaining the solidarity of individuals in cooperative relationships, community members can enjoy resources from the social structure, which will enable the achievement of common goals (Kimble, 2020;Wang et al, 2021).…”

Organizational change in response to environmental complexity: Insights from the business model innovation literature

“…As an element of business model innovation, sociability has the benefit of stimulating mutual trust, understanding and persuasion among social actors, including those who do not normally interact with each other. One might expect, for example, that sociable organizational agents can actively contribute to the creation of an 'ambience' for genuine and fertile dialogue and interaction with representants of the stakeholder community (Kimble, 2020). The rationale is that sociable behaviours have the dual effect of blurring the boundaries between interest and indifference (as well as between formality and informality) and unambiguously placing the cursor of social inclusivity above that of social exclusivity.…”

Partnership between the employer and the staff as a vital factor for knowledge sharing

“…Organisational factors refer to the organisational climate. They can cover trust (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003), open leadership climate (Taylor and Wright, 2004), top management support (MacNeil, 2004), innovation-supportive culture (Saleh and Wang, 1993), reward system linked to knowledge sharing (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002), and organisational structure (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003;Kimble, 2020). Technical factors are related to technical infrastructure and information technology (Hildreth and Kimble, 2002;Sharratt and Usoro, 2003;Huysman and Wulf, 2006).…”

“…Technical factors are related to technical infrastructure and information technology (Hildreth and Kimble, 2002;Sharratt and Usoro, 2003;Huysman and Wulf, 2006). Kimble (2020) concludes that three broad actions that "organisations can undertake to manage knowledge more effectively, are: (1) fostering a culture of knowledge sharing, (2) nurturing interpersonal relationships, and (3) creating appropriate organizational structures. "…”

“…According to Davenport and Prusak (1998) organisational culture is the main reason for people's reluctance or willingness to share knowledge. Many authors (e.g., O'Dell and McDermott, 2001;Al-Alawi et al, 2007;Abzari and Teimouri, 2008;Chin-Loy and Mujtaba, 2011;Tong et al, 2013;Al-Kurdi et al, 2020;Kimble, 2020) conclude that knowledge sharing can be facilitated by organisational culture. For example, state that collaborative culture positively fosters employees' knowledge sharing behaviours.…”