Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle, accommodation and privilege

Oborn, Eivor; Dawson, Sandra

doi:10.1177/0018726710371237

Cited by 90 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This results connects with existing arguments that actors with greater social and organizational capital are more likely to innovate (Crossan and (Currie et al, 2008;Oborn and Dawson, 2010). Our findings are more positive, showing that individuals with greater social capital are indeed more likely to perceive high psychological safety, and be confident to share knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Behavioural operations in healthcare: a knowledge sharing perspective

Mura

Lettieri

Radaelli

et al. 2016

IJOPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments and empirical evidence that different knowledge sharing behaviours – i.e. sharing best practices, sharing mistakes, seeking feedbacks – are promoted and enabled by different types of knowledge assets, and differently affect employees’ innovative work behaviours. Design/methodology/approach The research framework includes four sets of constructs: employees’ innovative work behaviour, knowledge sharing, knowledge assets, psychological safety. The literature-grounded hypotheses were tested collecting data from healthcare professionals from three hospice and palliative care organisations in Italy. In all, 195 questionnaires were analysed using structural equations modelling technique. Findings First, findings show that the linkage between knowledge assets and knowledge sharing is both direct and indirect with psychological safety as relevant mediating construct. The linkage between relational and structural social capital and seeking feedbacks and sharing mistakes is fully mediated by psychological safety. Second, findings show that each dimension of knowledge sharing affects the different dimensions of employees’ innovative work behaviour – i.e. idea generation, idea promotion, idea implementation – in a distinct manner. While sharing of best practices influences all of them, seeking feedbacks affects idea promotion and sharing mistakes influences idea implementation. Practical implications The results provide operations managers with a clearer picture of how to pursue improvements of current operations by leveraging on knowledge sharing among employees through the creation of numerous, high-quality interpersonal relationships among employees, based on rich and cohesive network ties. Originality/value This study, by adopting a micro-level perspective, offers an original perspective on how knowledge assets and knowledge sharing initiatives may contribute to the engagement of innovative work behaviour by employees.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Behavioural operations in healthcare: a knowledge sharing perspective

Mura

Lettieri

Radaelli

et al. 2016

IJOPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the in-depth case study of a multidisciplinary urology cancer team, Oborn and Dawson (2010) showed that different disciplines constructed the patient, as well as their own roles in relation to patients, in diverging ways. The nurse saw the patient as a sufferer in need of counseling; the surgeon saw the patient as a system of organs and bodily tissues to be removed or rearranged; and the oncologist constructed the patient as an evolving malignancy.…”

Section: Inputs: Knowledge Boundary Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with previous boundaries, pragmatic boundaries encompass semantic ones, as interests cause certain perspectives to be systematically preferred or constrained (Oborn & Dawson, 2010). In such cases, in addition to shared meaning and lexicons, cross-boundary teaming requires the development of shared interests, through negotiation.…”

Section: Inputs: Knowledge Boundary Thicknessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Boundary Teaming for Innovation: Integrating Research on Teams and Knowledge in Organizations

Edmondson

Harvey

2017

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-boundary teaming, within and across organizations, is an increasingly popular strategy for innovation. Knowledge diversity is seen to expand the range of views and ideas that teams can draw upon to innovate. Yet, case studies of practice reveal that teaming across knowledge boundaries can be difficult, and innovation is not always realized. Two streams of research are particularly relevant for understanding this challenge: research on team effectiveness and research on knowledge in organizations.They offer complementary insights: the former stream focuses on group dynamics and measures team inputs, processes, emergent states, and outcomes, while the latter closely investigates dialogue and objects in recurrent social practices. Drawing from both streams, this paper seeks to shed light on the complexity of cross-boundary teaming, while highlighting factors that may enhance its effectiveness. We develop an integrative model to provide greater explanatory power than previous approaches to assess crossboundary teaming efforts and their innovation performance.

show abstract

“…Under these conditions, boundary organisations may still provide durable structures to reinforce mutual adaptation of collaborators (O'Mahony and Bechky, 2008) but, contrary to Mørk et al (2012), such mutual adaptation is often achieved through accommodating the interests of the more powerful collaborators rather than through facilitating mutual benefit (cf. Oborn and Dawson, 2010). These factors, accompanied by path-dependency and confidentiality issues, may also result in asymmetrical boundary management.…”

Section: Deliberate and Emergent Boundary Management: Misalignment Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

R&D CONSORTIA AS BOUNDARY ORGANISATIONS: MISALIGNMENT AND ASYMMETRY OF BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT

Omidvar

Kislov

2016

Int. J. Innov. Mgt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article presents a qualitative multiple case study of three multilateral publicprivate R&D consortia representing different industrial sectors. Using the practice-based view as a theoretical lens, we explore the interplay between the deliberate and emergent practices of boundary management across the following three dimensions: (1) boundary bridging focus; (2) boundary crossing arrangements; and (3) collaborative governance arrangements. Drawing on interviews, documentary analysis and observational data, we describe the misalignment between the deliberate and emergent aspects of boundary management, which can be caused by the funders' reporting requirements, power differentials between collaborators and lack of contextual understanding. These factors, accompanied by path-dependency and confidentiality issues, may result in asymmetrical boundary management, whereby a selective focus on a specific boundary (or set of boundaries) combined with an unequal development of boundary bridges within the collaboration may lead to the crossing of some boundaries being prioritised at the expense of others.

show abstract

Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle, accommodation and privilege

Cited by 90 publications

References 38 publications

Behavioural operations in healthcare: a knowledge sharing perspective

Behavioural operations in healthcare: a knowledge sharing perspective

Cross-Boundary Teaming for Innovation: Integrating Research on Teams and Knowledge in Organizations

R&D CONSORTIA AS BOUNDARY ORGANISATIONS: MISALIGNMENT AND ASYMMETRY OF BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About