Knowledge domains and knowledge conversion: an empirical investigation

Abstract

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to present evidence of how different domains of knowledge (basic, experiential, emotional and innovative knowledge) relate to knowledge conversion processes (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization) in the firm. Design/methodology/approach-Confirmatory principal component analyses were performed on knowledge domain and knowledge conversion variables. Path analyses, based on stepwise multiple regressions, were performed in order to determine the strength and directionality of the relationships between the four processes of knowledge conversion and the four knowledge domains. Findings-The results indicate that knowledge based on experience impacts the conversion of tacit knowledge within an organization, leading to innovative knowledge and competitive advantage. Emotional knowledge impacts the knowledge conversion process similarly. Only basic knowledge impacts the explicit components of combination. Research limitations/implications-First, the results of this study are drawn from a fairly large sample in only one firm, and hence, one industry. Not all of the middle managers who participated in this study are equally familiar with knowledge creation and dissemination within their organization. Practical implications-The results suggest that investing in basic training of employees and managers in order to reach a basal level of knowledge can act as a precursor to fuel other types of knowledge conversion as well as the innovative and experiential knowledge domains. Originality/value-Past research has not examined how the domains of knowledge (the content) are related to the conversion of knowledge. In addition, little research in the area of knowledge conversion has taken place in a European setting. This paper addresses the deficits.

Managing Knowledge in Organizations: A Nonaka’s SECI Model Operationalization

“…As shown, the SECI model has mainly been used in theory or for descriptive purposes and case studies; indeed, approximately half of the studies are theoretical articles (n = 55), whereas the remaining empirical studies include qualitative case studies (n = 20) and quantitative investigations (n = 33) with high empirical heterogeneity (Gourlay, 2006). Furthermore, only some empirical studies have tested the model's dimensionality, for instance showing that different knowledge processes are associated to specific domains of knowledge (Byosiere and Luethge, 2008) or are related to distinct outcomes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001;Chen and Chen, 2006). Some studies have also found that the effectiveness of a knowledge management process depends on the circumstances under which it was used; thus, individuals may employ different types of knowledge creation processes in order to better perform different types of tasks (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001;Chou and He, 2004).…”

Evaluating the effects of executive learning and development on organisational performance: implications for developing senior manager and executive capabilities

“…Experiential L&D also generated positive effects on performance and follows the same explanation offered for participative L&D, except that in this case, the human capital and dynamic capabilities will emerge from greater self‐awareness, whereas in terms of participative L&D, the source of human capital and dynamic capabilities will emanate from social interactions of executives. The positive effects of experiential L&D on organisational performance is corroborated by scholars positing that experience‐based knowledge plays an important role in the development of tacit knowledge, which in turn, drives innovative and competitive advantage (Byosiere & Luethge, ).…”

The influence of learning behaviour on team adaptability

“…Yet, knowledge accumulation, knowledge sharing and knowledge conversion is a key resource of an organisations capacity to turn capabilities into competencies and skills that make a difference in practice (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000;Byosiere and Luethge, 2008). It is one thing to capture and store knowledge (Bassi, 1999), but it is quite another to share it so that a teams' practical application is more evident.…”

“…What is understood intuitively needs to be translated into a form that can be understood. While method-based learning is clearly invoked where one learns the knowledge to the point where it becomes second nature (Byosiere and Luethge, 2008), different behaviour through the use of metaphor, dialogues or analogies will be more useful for participation. In S-A teams where there is more freedom in thought and action and a stronger level of adaptability is required, it is reasonable to suggest that knowledge participation processes will be enhanced by more rather than less emergent learning.…”