Eliciting tacit knowledge in professions based on interpersonal interactions

Abstract

Purpose The notion of tacit knowledge is mostly discussed with regard to experts’ knowledge (Sternberg et al., 1995). It is less discussed in the context of interpersonal interactions, which are very common in organizations and in certain occupations (e.g. negotiations and therapy). The limited reference to this aspect is due to the lack of appropriate methodologies. This study aims to deal with this lacuna; specifically, how to elicit tacit knowledge in professions based on interpersonal interactions. Design/methodology/approach A case study was chosen to demonstrate the use of symbolic interaction key concepts (Goffman, 1959) as a method to evoke tacit knowledge. The information was gathered from interviews conducted among 20 business negotiation experts. The “onion” model (Asher and Popper, 2019) was used as a tool to analyze various layers of tacit knowledge. Findings The suggested framework enabled the exploration and characterization of tacit knowledge in professions based on interpersonal interaction, which would not have otherwise emerged. Practical implications As interpersonal interaction is a complex and abstract occurrence, the authors propose a conceptual framework (symbolic interaction), which allows for the characterization of such occurrences and a tool (the “onion” model) that allows for the classification of the elicited tacit knowledge. Originality/value The study suggests an original framework, which enables the identification and analysis of tacit knowledge in a context that is very common in organizations but is, yet, partially explored – personal interactions. The use of the suggested framework can possibly bridge the gap between unconscious personal learning and knowledge that can be used at the organizational level.

Managerial Interpersonal Competencies - Benefiting from Learning Organization Characteristics in SMEs

“…Obtained evidence on MIC's strong effect on LOC in SMEs in a transitional economy expands the knowledge of the manager's role in facilitating employees' learning, the scarcity of which is highlighted by Coetzer et al (2019). These results are in line with the viewpoints of a number of scholars, such as Argyris and Schön (1974), Edmonson and Moingeon (1998), Marsick (2013), Örtenblad (2018), Asher and Popper (2021). They argue that MIC, on one hand, can represent major constraints and, on the other, can provide a significant boost to learning emergence, knowledge sharing and finally to the development of a learning organization.…”

“…Coetzer et al (2019, p. 421) emphasize that a scarce, but growing body of literature on the manager's role in facilitating employees' learning (Döös et al, 2015;Ellström 2012;Hughes 2004;Wallo 2017) suggests that managers can have a significant impact on learning in the workplace through developmental interventions such as coaching (Beattie et al, 2014) and through creating conditions in the work environment that are conducive to learning (Ellinger, 2005). With that in mind, a number of authors (Argyris & Schön, 1974;Edmonson & Moingeon, 1998;Riege, 2005;Song et al, 2009;Crousea et al, 2011;Marsick, 2013;Froehlich et al, 2014;Santa & Nurcan, 2016;Örtenblad, 2018;Asher & Popper, 2021) argue that the interpersonal communication and interpersonal competencies of employees and managers can represent major constraints to learning emergence and knowledge sharing or, on the other hand, can provide significant boosts to the development of organizational learning and finally to the development of a learning organization. Although presumably affecting their closer work environment, broader organizational settings and dynamics, overall managerial effectiveness, and ultimately organizational performance (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004;Chong, 2013;Pichler et al, 2014;Wang et al, 2022), the effects of MIC on various organizational phenomena, including LOC, are still unclear and demand additional in-depth research.…”