Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The connection between knowledge and innovation appears to be simple and easily perceived. People use knowledge to drive their industry or personal achievements forward. However, in the business sphere, the use of one’s experience has a much more complicated process – people should not only understand what the concept of ‘knowledge’ is but also learn how to disseminate and utilize it. According to Cook and Brown (1999), two major views of knowledge exist, linking it to possession and practice. The movement between these stages is what develops different types of people’s understanding. However, this process uncovers new issues for companies, while simultaneously offering many benefits for development.
Here, the notion of teamwork arises – people working together bound by one goal. In this case, knowledge and innovation possess a connection that is determined by the information as well as its sharing (Fay et al. 2015). Therefore, one may assume that team members encounter many challenges on their path to innovation. Workers of a business do not have full control of their environment due to organizational structure, relationships, or personal ideologies (Chuang, Jackson & Jiang 2016).
Moreover, the contemporary formation of many companies leads to new problems of employing digital communicational and operational channels. To maintain a strong connection between employees’ knowledge and the industry’s need for innovation, human resource management (HRM) is highlighted as a set of approaches and practices that encourage communication and growth.
Views and Types of Knowledge
To understand how knowledge is connected to innovation, one needs to understand how the former can be defined. The two views of knowledge were summarised by Cook and Brown (1999, p. 383), who described the first type as ‘knowledge as a possession’ and the second one as ‘knowledge as practice’. Here, possession denotes the existence of some facts in one’s mind – a person can be considered knowledgeable if they have information is some or other form. For example, if a mechanic knows how to fix a car, this individual has a particular portion of knowledge but does not imply that this approach to fixing a car is the only ultimate solution.
Interestingly, four types of knowledge can be attributed to this concept of ‘having’. All knowledge can be separated into individual and group – it is clear that some persons possess unique expertise, while other facts or theories are common. At the same time, tacit and explicit knowledge exists; tacit knowledge refers to some findings which an individual has but cannot define or articulate to others since they are based on personal experience, observations, or internal logic (Newell et al. 2009; Nonaka 2007).
In contrast, explicit knowledge is put in understandable terms and available for sharing in an oral or written form. In businesses, tacit group knowledge is essential as it usually forms the organizational culture and dictates most operations and relations (Nonaka 2007). People employ both types in their daily life, which leads to the second way of interpreting knowledge – as practice.
In practice, knowledge is seen as an act of using learned information. Using the previous example, a mechanic with practical knowledge knows how to fix a car and does it. As can be seen, this means that this person engages in practicing the acquired knowledge. Cook and Brown (1999) describe the practice as an activity that can be performed by an individual or a group to do their work based on the surrounding organizational context. By using this knowledge, people can engage in sharing – transforming tacit knowledge into explicit, individual knowledge into group one and vice versa (Cook & Brown 1999). Thus, the application of knowledge and its transferability affect the potential for innovation.
The Concept of Teamwork
Teamwork is an inherent part of people’s performance; businesses value working in groups, elevating the research of people’s professional collaboration to a new level. As knowledge leads to innovation, its distribution is closely tied to success. Therefore, teamwork has to be effective in companies that work with research, development, and other knowledge-based jobs. In these firms, even the organizational structure is designed to sustain a collaborative environment.
For example, the case of ScienceCo demonstrates how adhocracy supports knowledge work. The company employs many professionals, each of whom has some set responsibilities according to their experience and skills (Cook & Brown 2009). Nevertheless, the employees are free to propose new projects and work on innovative ideas outside of their usual contracts with clients. Moreover, the firm has a flat organizational structure with one level of management and a high level of the staff’s involvement in the company’s activities.
ScienceCo also does not have a strict dress code and has only one performance management system that is based on achieving set revenue targets. One can observe that other rules such as a rigid hierarchy or set duties are absent from the case. Workers are encouraged to work together and use their group and individual knowledge in designing and completing projects.
The effectiveness of adhocracy in working with knowledge can be explained by this system’s concepts of cultural control, knowledge sharing, and group commitment. According to Lantz Friedrich, Sjöberg, and Friedrich (2016), team learning and proactivity substantially contribute to their performance and success. By engaging in complex tasks, professionals practice their knowledge and share information with others.
Moreover, their high level of responsibility creates self of the job being rewarding, thus increasing the desire to complete tasks (Yigitcanlar 2016). In contrast, in a bureaucratic environment, knowledge workers may feel restricted by a small set of duties and the lack of self-expression. While this system is much easier to control than adhocracy, it does not offer similar opportunities for teamwork which potentially lowers the potential for innovation.
Opportunities of Teamwork
The successful collaboration of knowledge workers can open up many possibilities for the company and the employees themselves. For example, Edmondson (2012) introduces the notion of teaming – a process of creating new teams for projects based on the professionals’ work-related skills. Teaming differs from typical organizational structures because it results in the constant movement of people from one diverse group to another.
As Edmondson (2012) notes, this system of assigning people to projects has many benefits. First of all, since workers from different departments usually collaborate on projects, their understanding of other disciplines grows substantially, providing them with a variety of skills and a broad perspective on the world. For an organization, such workers can become indispensable – they solve complex problems and have informed views and opinions.
Second, people are engaged in most projects for limited periods of time, meaning that their relationships are also temporary. Through teaming, people learn to collaborate and share knowledge effectively – they can adopt a habit of explaining ideas in different terms or using each other’s language (Edmondson 2012). Furthermore, the organization can achieve a great level of collaboration among different employees and foster a strong culture and a robust support network (Tortoriello 2015).
The diversity of projects contributes to people’s creative growth as well. Temporality and continuous emergence of new topics of research contribute to people’s flexibility. This is an essential quality for knowledge distribution – people who possess skills can find ways to share and use them if their environment often presents new challenges.
With the implementation of technology and the internet into the work of many companies, the latter started to employ professionals from different cities and countries without relocation. Thus, workers have found themselves interacting with their team members through electronic communication. The cultural knowledge of such employees may increase, allowing them to use it to improve organizational operations and combine shared tacit knowledge for their projects (Khedhaouria & Jamal 2015). This diversity also leads to experimentation – the fluidity of the projects and the high level of each member’s responsibility puts workers in a position where their creative skills are needed to achieve goals (Shipton et al. 2005). Here, creative project management can increase productivity and promote innovation.
Knowledge Sharing: Challenges
Nonetheless, teaming also poses many threats to the effectiveness of knowledge distribution, teamwork, and innovation. The first challenge lies in the fact that professionals, apart from their skills, also have distinct personalities. Thus, they may possess differing values or perform their job in various ways, contributing to chaos and failing to establish trust. According to Paulin and Suneson (2012), sharing barriers are connected to people’s lack of knowledge about other the topic, failure to establish trustworthy relationships, or mistrust based on social capital.
For example, the case of the Research Team signified a lack of trusting and respectful relationships among group members. In this study, the principal investigators (PIs) established a level of trust based on perceived competence – they all recognized each other’s scientific contributions, although they did not read papers of other authors (Cook & Brown 2009). Nevertheless, this bond was quickly broken, after the PIs became disillusioned in each other’s skills. Similarly, their hired research officers (ROs) also encountered a similar situation, but their conflict was based on the lack of respect from the PIs.
This is one of the main challenges of teaming – people who did not know each other before starting a project did not develop a sense of belonging in a team, distancing themselves, and hoarding knowledge instead. It should be noted that all workers in this scenario were competent, but their biased attitude resulted in a failure. As an outcome, their project suffered since it was negatively appraised by their peers. It is difficult to disagree that a team without any trust can achieve goals and succeed.
Another problem arises if people cannot work efficiently due to time constraints, time zones, or lack of communication. In this case, people’s personalities are not the main problem since their interaction is limited because of other reasons.
As many projects require professionals from different areas of knowledge, this issue is relevant to the current state of business – HRM should select workers that will be able to find time for meetings or conversations with their teammates (Collet, Hine & du Plessis 2015). Otherwise, their knowledge sharing will encounter a barrier of time and place. The chaotic nature of teaming also implies that workers will be able to meet and discuss their progress frequently (Aghion & Jaravel 2015). Otherwise, the lack of communication may lower mutual trust and understanding.
The infrequency of communication is also seen in the case of Uni, a university that chose to participate in a two year ERP implementation. Their interaction with ConsultCo was not monitored in any way, and both parties failed to create deadlines, SMART goals, or some scheduling agreements (Cook & Brown 2009). The project was not completed in time; both organizations did not want to discuss their concerns openly or negotiate the details of the future program.
Here, one can detect multiple knowledge barriers. First of all, the lack of a structure for sharing did not contribute to teamwork, leaving all involved persons to work individually. Second, the members’ inability to communicate their points led to multiple misunderstandings and rendered the final product unusable. This situation could be overcome with the implementation of a plan for all participating members (Rice, O’Connor & Pierantozzi 2008). Nonetheless, user resistance caused by the lack of interaction required Uni to make changes, which prolonged the project’s deadline for more than two years.
Conclusion
The connection between knowledge and innovation is direct – people’s experience and skills allow them to improve performance and develop new ideas. However, the use of knowledge in business is complicated because individuals work in teams and their shared abilities can significantly increase the effectiveness of any project. Therefore, knowledge sharing is an idea that is explored in organizational research.
Knowledge is possession is a valuable asset of all people, and its practice allows one to disseminate expertise. Knowledge workers require conditions that foster responsibility, creative freedom, and collaboration to enhance their potential.
Teamwork combines one’s knowledge and skills and provides both people and companies with many opportunities for growth. However, it also has many challenges; most of them are connected to knowledge sharing. Such problems include a lack of knowledge, failure to establish trust, and ineffective communication. HRM can resolve these issues by ensuring an open and respectful collaboration guided by SMART goals and shared tacit knowledge – such teamwork leads to innovation.
Reference List
Aghion, P & Jaravel, X 2015, ‘Knowledge spillovers, innovation and growth’, The Economic Journal, vol. 125, no. 583, pp. 533-573.
Chuang, CH, Jackson, SE & Jiang, Y 2016, ‘Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge’, Journal of Management, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 524-554.
Collet, C, Hine, D & du Plessis, K 2015, ‘Employability skills: perspectives from a knowledge-intensive industry’, Education+Training, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 532-559.
Cook, SD & Brown, JS 1999, ‘Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing’, Organization Science, vol. 10. No. 4, pp. 381-400.
Edmondson, AC 2012, ‘Teamwork on the fly’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 72-80.
Fay, D, Shipton, H, West, MA & Patterson, M 2015, ‘Teamwork and organizational innovation: the moderating role of the HRM context’, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 24 no. 2, pp. 261-277.
Khedhaouria, A & Jamal, A 2015, ‘Sourcing knowledge for innovation: knowledge reuse and creation in project teams’, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 932-948.
Lantz Friedrich, A, Sjöberg, A & Friedrich, P 2016, ‘Leaned teamwork fattens workplace innovation: the relationship between task complexity, team learning and team proactivity’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 561-569.
Newell, S, Robertson, M, Scarbrough, H & Swan, J 2009, Managing knowledge work and innovation, 2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Nonaka, I 2007, ‘The knowledge-creating company’, Harvard Business Review. Web.
Paulin, D & Suneson, K 2012, ‘Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers – three blurry terms in KM’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 81-91.
Rice, MP, O’Connor, GC & Pierantozzi, R 2008, ‘Implementing a learning plan to counter project uncertainty’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 54-62.
Shipton, H, Fay, D, West, M, Patterson, M & Birdi, K 2005, ‘Managing people to promote innovation’, Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 118-128.
Tortoriello, M 2015, ‘The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: the moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 586-597.
Yigitcanlar, T 2016, ‘Understanding the multidimensional nature of innovation in the era of knowledge-based economy’, International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 203-206.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.