Work group knowledge absorption in public sector organizations

Work-Group Knowledge Acquisition in Knowledge Intensive Public-Sector Organizations: An Exploratory StudyGregory S. Richards,* Linda Duxbury† *University of Ottawa; †Carleton University

ABSTRACT

Given that the performance of public-sector organizations is tied to the efficient use of knowledge, this exploratory study examined factors that influence knowledge acquisition by work groups in knowledge-intensive public-sector organizations. Based upon a review of the absorptive capacity and knowledge management literature, we defined knowledge acquisition as the change in the collective knowledge of groups over time. The amount of individual prior knowledge, and common knowledge among group members, managerial practices, and perceptions of knowledge applicability were identified as independent varia-bles. Data were collected from 179 individuals representing 28 work groups in 7 public-sec-tor organizations. Using multi-level regression, we found that homogeneity of knowledge at the group level and perceptions of knowledge applicability influenced acquisition, but that, contrary to much of the literature in this domain, prior-related knowledge did not have such an influence. Middle-management practices moderated the impact of knowledge applica-bility, suggesting that middle managers provide contextual information that permits group members to better understand the relevance of external knowledge. Implications for prac-tice include the importance of training staff in teams to build homogeneity of knowledge, and ensuring that middle managers understand the organization’s strategy and their roles in the knowledge-utilization process. Implications for theory include the notion that prior knowledge can either encourage or obstruct knowledge acquisition.

InTROduCTIOn

Public-sector performance management has been extensively discussed and debated over the last two decades. It recently has become more important, however, as a result of citizens demanding more transparency in government operations, managers seeking to ensure value for money and politicians becoming increasingly conscious of eroding economic conditions (Halligan 2008; Van Dooren, Bouckhaert, and Halligan 2010). Performance management scholars and practitioners emphasize the use of performance-measurement systems and frameworks in improving organizational performance, but few proponents acknowledge the fact that public sector work predominantly involves

Address correspondence to the author at [email protected].

JPART

doi:10.1093/jopart/muu034© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance Access published August 19, 2014 at U

niversity of Ottaw

a on August 25, 2014

http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]?subject=

http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2

the delivery of knowledge-based services (Riege and Lindsay 2006; Willem and Buelens 2007) and therefore the effective processing of knowledge plays an important role in per-formance (Harvey et al. 2010; Rubenstein-Montano, Buchwalter, and Liebowitz 2001).

Harvey et al. (2010) argue that research on knowledge processes in public organ-izations is especially important given the fact that New Public Management (NPM) emphasizes responsive service delivery. Responsiveness calls for continuously gathering, integrating, and translating knowledge from diverse stakeholders into new operational practices and policies in order to improve service delivery (Riege and Lindsay 2006).

The public-sector knowledge management literature addresses the storage, dis-semination, and use of knowledge to improve organizational effectiveness. This litera-ture, however, is scarce (Butler et al. 2008; Cong and Pandya 2003; Liebowitz 2003; Riege and Lindsay 2006) and what does exist tends to focus narrowly on the tools and techniques that facilitate knowledge storage and sharing (Fowler and Pryke 2003). The organizational factors that motivate the acquisition and use of knowledge have received less attention.

The present study addresses this gap by exploring the determinants of work-group knowledge acquisition. We contribute to the literature in several ways. First, we explore the process of knowledge acquisition through the theoretical lens of absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Second, we focus our attention on work groups since the knowledge used in public-sector organizations is thought to be socially constructed (Riege and Lindsay 2006) and since groups are considered to be critical to such construction (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Sessa and London 2008; Spender 1996; Van den Bossche et al. 2006). Third, we emphasize the role of middle managers in knowledge acquisition. Although the evolving role of middle managers has been addressed in the public-sector literature, their impact on knowledge acqui-sition at the work-group level has not been the subject of much empirical research. Consequently, we address the following research questions:

1. What is the role of prior-related knowledge in encouraging work group knowledge acquisition?

2. Does homogeneity of group knowledge, that is, the commonality of knowledge within the group influence knowledge acquisition?

3. To what degree does knowledge relevance make a difference?4. What is the role of the groups’ managers with respect to knowledge acquisition?

The remainder of this paper first identifies the theoretical framework that guides the study; we then review the literature used to develop the framework. The study method-ology follows along with findings, conclusions, and suggestions for further research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

While many studies on absorptive capacity focus on the acquisition of knowledge, the application aspect is not often addressed. Recognizing this issue, Zahra and George (2002) modified the absorptive capacity construct to include potential and realized aspects. Potential absorptive capacity is defined as knowledge acquisition and assimi-lation, while realized refers to the ways in which the knowledge is applied (Jansen, Van den Bosch, and Volberda 2005; Zahra and George 2002). This study is based on

at University of O

ttawa on A

ugust 25, 2014http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from


Richards Work-Group Knowledge Acquisition 3

potential absorptive capacity and therefore the theoretical framework depicted in fig-ure 1 identifies organizational factors that we hypothesize influence knowledge acqui-sition. These include prior-related knowledge of individuals, perceived applicability of knowledge, and homogeneity of prior-related knowledge of the group. Middle-management practices are thought to influence individual perceptions of knowledge applicability therefore it is positioned as a moderating variable.

The multi-level design noted in figure 1 positions variables at the individual or at the group level.1 This approach was adopted because the study collects data from individuals in intact groups and therefore these responses are likely influenced by group membership. As a result, the assumption of independence of observations required for ordinary least squares regression is untenable (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Snijders and Bosker 1999).

This multi-level characteristic is common to many organizational phenomena that result from the interaction of people and systems across different hierarchical levels (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Goldstein 1987; Kozlowski and Klein 2000). In particular, Kozlowski and Klein (2000) suggest that some unit-level phenomena (i.e., group, work-unit, or organization) are emergent in that they originate at the indi-vidual level and, through a process of mutual interaction among individuals, manifest themselves at the unit level. For example, an organization’s culture can be viewed as an outcome of individual behaviors which, when taken together, inform group and organizational norms. Similarly, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) have argued that organi-zational absorptive capacity emerges from individual absorptive capacities.

Emergence of phenomena at a unit-level in organizations occurs through com-position or compilation (Bliese 2000; Kozlowski and Klein 2000). Composition-based

1 No hard and fast rule exists for defining a variable as individual or group level: the researcher determines the placement of the variables according to the theory and hypotheses to be tested (Snijders and Bosker 1999).

Figure 1Theoretical Framework

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



emergence assumes isomorphism between the individual and unit-level constructs. In this case, individuals in groups experience similar organizational phenomena that influence their perceptions. For example, consider a group’s knowledge about an organizational policy. Organizational communication would generate common per-ceptions about the core elements of the policy. Some group members might learn more about its objectives while others might focus on the organizational applications of the policy. Nevertheless, the knowledge that each individual holds is structurally equiva-lent because each understands something about these two categories (i.e., objectives and application) and thus aggregation to the group level is tenable.

In contrast, compilation-based emergence emphasizes diversity and variety among the individual and group-level viewpoints. For example, when a multi-disci-plinary group works on a new policy, its members embody a range of functional and educational backgrounds and thus the categories of knowledge that each uses might be vastly different. The policy document is a product compiled from this range of diverse functional knowledge, but no theoretical basis exists for aggregation.

It is important to note that individual and group variables (apart from global-unit constructs such as group size for example), are measured based on individual-level assessments. However, the variables are treated differently during data analysis. Individual data are entered into the software program for each individual in the study. Group variables are entered as the aggregated figure for the group.

THEORY

In this section, we discuss the importance of the construct of absorptive capacity for public-sector research and provide theoretical justification for the hypotheses tested.

Much of the current theory-based research on knowledge processes focuses on private-sector organizations (Rashman, Withers, and Hartley 2009). These findings are not necessarily transferable to public management given the differences noted between the two sectors (Boyne 2002; Perry and Rainey 1988; Rashman, Withers, and Hartley 2009). In a comprehensive review of the organizational learning and knowledge man-agement literature, Rashman, Withers, and Hartley (2009) conclude that public-sector organizations are subject to “. . . externally generated crises from national and regional government policy and political shifts, and the demands and expectations of stake-holders, partner agencies and local citizens” (486). In addition, public management is often constrained by political issues and conflicts, which makes it a distinctive context for the study of knowledge processes (Rashman, Withers, and Hartley 2009).

Many public-sector organizations have invested in knowledge management practices and systems (Pilichowski 2003), but little theoretical research on the pro-cesses involved in knowledge utilization exists. In particular, the concept of organiza-tional absorptive capacity, introduced into the management literature by Cohen and Levinthal (1990), has received much attention in the general literature but has not been applied in public-sector research. In contrast to many knowledge management studies that emphasize systems and tools, absorptive capacity focuses on the process of knowledge utilization. Therefore the study of knowledge in public-sector organi-zations from this process-based perspective might well yield new insights related to knowledge use in these organizations (Harvey et al. 2010).

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Absorptive Capacity

Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) seminal paper define absorptive capacity as an organi-zation’s ability to “. . . recognize the value of new information, assimilate it and apply it to commercial ends” (128). While this definition does not mention knowledge, it does imply that information that is assimilated is transformed into knowledge. The term “knowledge,” however, is subject to a variety of definitions. Moreover, the con-struction, recombination, creation, and development of knowledge are topics that engender significant debate.

Verkasalo and Lappalainen (1998) define information as data that have been organized to create meaning. Knowledge is considered to be the meaning contextu-alized by organizational realities. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) provide additional detail by defining organizational knowledge as:

. . . the capability members of an organization have developed to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their work in particular concrete contexts by enacting sets of generalizations (propositional statements) whose application depends on historically evolved collective understandings and experiences [emphasis in the original] (983).

Individual knowledge is transformed into organizational knowledge through a process of generalization whereby “. . . types of behaviors in types of situations are connected to types of actors” (Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001, 979). This reasoning implies that organizational knowledge depends on individual knowledge that, when integrated across different people through collective understanding, leads to generalized proposi-tional statements (i.e., “in this situation, given these actors, these particular behaviors are appropriate”).

While the above-referenced definition suggests that knowledge is a “capability,” the authors also suggest that knowledge becomes “distinctly organizational in its cod-ification” (989). Employees therefore may acquire knowledge from codified reposi-tories. They may also generate knowledge by adjusting the propositional nature of currently codified knowledge as they encounter new situations and render this knowl-edge organizational through collective generalizations.

The definition of absorptive capacity mentioned above refers to information that is assimilated. Yet Cohen and Levinthal (1990) neither identify the point at which information is assimilated nor do they address how and when such information becomes knowledge. In fact, the terms “information” and “knowledge” are used inter-changeably. For example, while they argue that absorptive capacity targets “external information,” they also use terminology such as “outside sources of knowledge” (128) and the “ability to exploit external knowledge” (128).

In addition, the authors do not discuss the process of assimilation other than to point out that the organization’s current base of knowledge is important to the pro-cess. A deeper examination of the concept of assimilation, however, allows us to better understand the “information to knowledge” implications of the absorptive capacity framework.

Assimilation is discussed at length in educational psychology as a process whereby individuals integrate new information about the world into preexisting cog-nitive schemas (Piaget 1950). A corollary process referred to as “accommodation”

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



occurs when these schemas are modified based on new perceptions. The Piagetian per-spective embraces the foundational elements of organizational knowledge proposed by Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001). On one hand, external information might exist in a readily usable format (codified knowledge)—for example, a report that identi-fies a new way of conducting some organizational process. Following Tsoukas and Vladimorou, one might argue that the authors of the report have drawn the relevant distinctions and have predefined the propositional statements. Thus, the user does not need to repeat this process. The report contains information structured as organi-zational knowledge—as an “object” that can be acquired. On the other hand, infor-mation might exist in more basic forms that require manipulation before it becomes usable; in other words, cognitive processing is needed in order to draw distinctions and create the propositional statements. In both cases, one might argue that knowledge acquisition is involved. In the former case, little cognitive processing is required; in the latter, the information has to be processed before the material is rendered usable within an organizational context.

This study does not address the epistemological aspects of the information-to-knowledge conversion process. Rather, we take the approach that knowledge acquisi-tion refers both to the importation of “ready to use knowledge” and to “information less ready to use” that must be manipulated by the user. This perspective reflects the basic notions underlying Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) absorptive capacity frame-work and is consistent with Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) as well as other research-ers who affirm that organizational knowledge is contextualized meaning extracted from raw material (i.e., data and information) that influences individual activities (Dixon 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; O’Dell and Grayson 2000; Verkasalo and Lappalainen 1998).

Knowledge Acquisition

The Gale Encyclopedia of Education (Guthrie 2002) defines knowledge acquisition as “. . . the process of absorbing and storing new information in memory” (1432). Similarly, Grant (1996) defines it as the addition of knowledge to an existing knowledge base.

When this definition is applied to the group level, the situation becomes more complex. A review of the team and group learning literature by Decuyper, Dochym, and Van den Bossche (2010) suggests that many different conceptualizations of group learning exist. At a high level, however, it can be viewed as collective learning that is based on various forms of inputs that permit the capture, development, and recom-bination of information to deliver some learning-related output (Decuyper, Dochym, and Van den Bossche 2010). These “input–process–output” models define activities such as reflective questioning for example, which permit members of a group to learn through some process leading to specific outputs (Knapp 2010). The group, however, does not exist as a sentient entity that learns separately from its members. Therefore, more specific explanations of how groups learn focus on the group’s interaction with information. Argote, Gruengeld, and Naquin (2001, 370) argue that “. . . group learn-ing involves activities through which individuals acquire, share and combine knowl-edge . . . evidence that group learning has occurred includes changes in knowledge . . . .” Similarly, Zarraga and Bonache (2005) suggest that group knowledge can be viewed as

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



“collective knowledge” which is developed through individual members acquiring and sharing knowledge with other members. Gibson’s (2001) concept of collective cogni-tion is consistent with this reasoning as is the knowledge creating framework devel-oped by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Tsoukas and Vladimirou’s (2001) notion of organizational knowledge as propositional statements that are developed by individu-als and then generalized is also consistent with these ideas but, in this study, applied at the group level.

While many different outputs of group learning can be identified (Decuyper, Dochym, and Van den Bossche 2010), the multi-level concept of emergence fits well with the more specific models of group learning that are based on individuals learning and sharing knowledge (Argote, Gruengeld, and Naquin 2001; Wilson, Goodman, and Cronin 2007; Zarraga and Bonache 2005). Following this approach, the most direct output of group learning is change in knowledge. Accordingly, the theoreti-cal framework positions knowledge acquisition as a group-level construct based on the reasoning that group knowledge emerges from individual knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Wilson, Goodman, and Cronin 2007; Zarraga and Bonache 2005). In this case, emergence is compositional since individual knowledge is structurally equiv-alent to group knowledge. In summary, our construct of group knowledge acquisition refers to a process of individual acquisition and sharing that increases the collective knowledge of the group within specific knowledge domains.

This construct is distinct from the notion of group learning which, while defined in a variety of ways by different authors (Sessa and London 2008), tends to include a broader range of phenomena: the acquisition of knowledge related to new ways of working, thinking, and collaborating, as well as changed mental models and organiza-tional outcomes. In this study, consistent with absorptive capacity theory as discussed earlier, we focus our attention on the acquisition aspect only.

Prior-Related Knowledge

Since the prior-related knowledge of individuals enables them to better recognize and acquire knowledge, it is positioned in the model as an individual-level varia-ble. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) argue that prior-related knowledge of a particular domain allows individuals to recognize the value of new knowledge and that this rec-ognition creates additional motivation for its acquisition and use. For example, if a person knows nothing about arithmetic, it would be difficult for him or her to under-stand the applications of differential calculus. Empirical research in the educational domain confirms the importance of prior-related knowledge demonstrating that the efficiency and effectiveness of student learning varies according to the depth and breadth of a student’s current knowledge (Hailikari and Nevgi 2010; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. 2012).

Several studies on absorptive capacity measure prior-related knowledge using proxies—most commonly a company’s R&D expenditures. This measure is not rel-evant in the context of public organizations, but other studies that use self-reported measures of prior-related knowledge (Boynton, Zmud, and Jacobs 1994; Matusik and Heeley 2005) demonstrate a positive relationship with knowledge acquisition. For example, Boynton, Zmud, and Jacobs (1994) measured prior-related knowledge

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



by asking managers to define “how informed” they were about business operations and strategies. Matusik and Heeley (2005) asked respondents to identify their level of knowledge of specific topics within the organization. In both studies, the start-ing level of knowledge was shown to be positively related to knowledge acquisition. Accordingly, we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Prior-related knowledge has a positive impact on work-group knowledge acquisition.

Knowledge Relevance

Individuals make decisions about the relevance of the knowledge that they plan to acquire. Therefore, this variable is positioned at the individual level in the theoreti-cal model. Case studies on knowledge management in the public sector indicate that relevance is an important aspect. Dixon, McGowan, and Cravens (2009), for exam-ple, describe the use of knowledge management specialists who assess the relevance and usefulness of the knowledge to be stored in organizational repositories. Similarly, Desouza (2009) suggests that the evaluation of knowledge relevance is an impor-tant and common practice. Relevance is therefore an important concept in this field, though it has not been addressed to any meaningful extent in the current literature.

Foundational to Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) absorptive capacity model is the notion that an organization’s stock of current knowledge enables evaluation of new knowledge relative to organizational goals. Relevance is therefore understood as the degree to which knowledge can be applied to enable the accomplishment of organi-zational objectives (Dixon 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; O’Dell and Grayson 2000). Accordingly, we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The perceived applicability of knowledge has a positive impact on knowledge acquisition in work groups.

Homogeneity of Prior-Related Knowledge

The degree of homogeneity of prior-related knowledge is calculated as the standard devi-ation of the individual-level prior-related knowledge scores and therefore is a global-unit property of the group. As discussed above, group-level knowledge emergence is based on individual acquisition and on the subsequent sharing of knowledge within the group. The group’s collective knowledge is therefore increased through interaction among group members (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011; Zarraga and Bonache 2005). Homogeneity of prior-related knowledge is thought to be a starting point for knowledge sharing (Cramton 2001; Grant 1996; Hansen, Mors, and Lovas 2005) since common “cognitive hooks” enable the rapid dissemination of new information among group members. Consider, for example, a scenario where group member A acquires knowledge about a new policy and group member B has already heard of the policy and understands the context. The sharing of relevant knowledge (i.e., how the policy might affect the work of the group) is facilitated because of the common contextual understanding. In a situation where group member B knows absolutely nothing about the policy, knowledge sharing will require more time and effort.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



The importance of knowledge sharing among group members is highlighted by research on knowledge management in the public sector, which suggests that, despite the investments in information systems noted in many organizations (Pilichowski 2003), knowledge transfer is in fact a people-intensive process (Hazlett, McAdam, and Beggs 2008; Rubenstein-Montano, Buchwalter, and Liebowitz 2001). In a case study on such processes, Hazlett, McAdam, and Beggs (2008) found that people were the primary knowledge carriers. They also found that systematic training in the subject-matter area is useful for encouraging knowledge sharing, presumably due to the lev-eling out of competencies among individuals that such training provides. Accordingly we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Homogeneity of prior-related knowledge has a positive impact on work-group knowledge acquisition.

Middle-Management Practices

Cohen and Levinthal (1990) point out that knowledge makes its way through the organization aided by knowledge transfer agents who span organizational bounda-ries. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) suggest that middle managers typically play this role of knowledge-transfer agent. Similarly, Gerlak and Heikkila (2011) suggest that, within collaborative arrangements in public-sector agencies, organizational leaders at all levels are responsible for “jumpstarting” knowledge acquisition.

Research on middle management in public organizations suggests that these man-agers are well positioned to play a variety of roles in stimulating knowledge acquisi-tion. Thomas and Dunkerley (1999) argue that New Public Management has flattened many organizations, thus increasing the scope of middle-management work. Middle managers therefore connect with more people across the organization and are routinely involved in information transfer and dissemination across organizational boundaries (Ainsworth, Grant, and Iedema 2009). Similarly, Carlstrom (2012) argues that the importance of middle managers is growing within public management and that one of their most critical roles is to translate information between different organizational levels. This viewpoint is supported by much of the middle-management literature, which suggests that these managers function as important information conduits in organizations (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1998; Huy 2001; Kanter 1982; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).

Research conducted by Kifidu et al. (1997) identified that, in addition to their role as intraorganizational information conduits, middle managers also carry out a vari-ety of administrative roles such as the coordination of internal group activities and the translation of policies into practice. We have argued that group-level knowledge acquisition results from individuals gathering and then sharing knowledge with each other. Therefore, these group-maintenance activities are likely important for facilitat-ing knowledge sharing.

The specific practices of the middle manager as knowledge facilitator have not been addressed in much detail in the literature. From the available research, two broad sets of activities emerge. On one hand, middle managers provide context for employees by sharing information about organizational strategies and intended

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



outcomes (Jackson and Humble 1994; Nonaka, Konno, and Toyama 2001; Thakur 1998). On the other hand, managers enable interaction among members of the group thus stimulating knowledge sharing (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1998; Nonaka, Konno, and Toyama 2001). For example, Sarin and McDermott (2003) demonstrated that group leaders who adopt a democratic style tend to have a positive influence on knowledge acquisition. Similarly, Edmondson (1999), in research conducted in a hospital setting, concluded that teams whose leaders encourage members to “speak up” about mistakes tend to learn faster than those whose members are expected to simply follow prescribed routines. These studies suggest that group leaders can estab-lish a context that facilitates individual knowledge acquisition and sharing. Finally, it has been argued that the “input–process–output” model of group learning does not adequately describe organizational reality since in practice, groups are influenced by many other factors that mediate or moderate the process of learning (Ilgen et al 2005). In addition, Todorova and Durisin (2007), raise the question of power rela-tionships within the absorptive capacity framework, that is, people in authority such as managers must have a role to play in how knowledge is acquired and applied within the organization.

Bearing this in mind as well as our earlier arguments about the influence of knowledge relevance, we suggest that certain middle-management practices can pro-vide contextual information and thus help individuals within groups to better recog-nize the applicability of available knowledge. For example, a manager might provide information about the strategic importance of a new policy, thus enabling individual group members to better define important knowledge related to that policy. In an era of unparalleled information growth, a manager’s ability to narrow and focus the attention of team members is an important contribution. In addition, managerial activities can create a group climate that encourages knowledge sharing. Accordingly, we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Middle-management practices moderate the impact of perceived knowledge applicability on work-group knowledge acquisition.

METHOdS

Knowledge acquisition occurs over time (Kozlowski and Klein 2000; Wilson, Goodman, and Cronin 2007). Accordingly, we employed a phased research design spanning 8 months. Details of the methodology are provided below.

Sample

The sample consisted of 28 groups of knowledge workers drawn from 7 government organizations in the Canadian federal public sector. Organization 1 featured approxi-mately 1,000 employees. All other organizations had more than 5,000 employees. They were all headquartered in Ottawa (the capital of Canada) with regional offices located across the country. They all featured traditional structures headed by a deputy min-ister (DM), with assistant deputy ministers directly reporting to the DM. The next layer of management included directors general followed by directors. The middle

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



managers involved in the study were mostly at the Director level (three levels removed from the Deputy Minister).

A work group is defined as a work unit within an organization comprised of more than one individual with a stable membership reporting to the same group leader (Cohen and Bailey 1997). The groups involved in this study delivered “knowledge-based” services, which are defined by Davenport, Jarvenpaa, and Beers (1996) as follows:

. . . knowledge work’s primary activity is the acquisition, creation, packaging or application of knowledge. Characterized by variety and exception rather than routine, it is performed by professional or technical workers with a high level of skill and expertise (54).

All groups could be characterized as delivering “internal services”: training, research, business solutions, and information-technology services to clients within their respec-tive organizations. Their parent organizations varied in terms of their functional areas and mandates, and therefore faced different political, citizen, and stakeholder pres-sures. By contrast, internal services groups tend to respond to similar service-delivery requirements from the operating core of their respective organizations. While some variation did exist (for example, between information technology and training), the “external environment” was less varied than it would be in the case of operational groups that deliver services directly to citizens.

Participants were selected through the use of a government-wide network of mid-dle managers and through direct contact with senior managers in government depart-ments. E-mail invitations to participate were distributed to both of these lists. Once the confirmation had been received, we met with the managers to review the project, the data-collection methods, and the approach. The middle managers participating in this study were direct leaders of their respective groups.

We used questionnaires to gather data in a manner similar to that employed by many other researchers in the area of absorptive capacity (Boynton, Zmud, and Jacobs 1994; Gupta and Govindarajan 2000; Schulz 2001). Nevertheless, we also decided to collect information during face-to-face meetings with the groups. This approach allowed us to validate the knowledge domains used in the study and to ensure that all study participants received clear instructions about the data-collection process. The questionnaires were pretested with a sub-sample of the participating groups (a total of 39 individuals whose responses were not used in the final analysis). All managers in the study also reviewed all questionnaires prior to their distribu-tion to the work groups and thus provided validation of the management-practices questions.

Following the pretest, we met with each group to explain the study in detail (using a standard scripted Powerpoint deck) and to collect the data (Round 1). This approach ensured that we received questionnaire responses from all group mem-bers and that all group members completed the questionnaire at the same time. During this round of data collection, each respondent was assigned a participant number to permit the matching of the questionnaires during the second round of the process.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



A second round of data collection (Round 2) took place between 6 and 8 months after the first round. The actual timing depended on the availability of the group. The specific length of time was chosen to avoid excessive attrition in group membership but to allow sufficient time for learning to occur, which we confirmed during initial meetings with the groups. We again met with each group to ensure that all members who were present during Round 2 had participated in Round 1. The final data set of 28 groups (179 individuals) represented group members who completed both Round 1 and Round 2 surveys. An analysis of responses from groups providing data at different times during Round 2 revealed no significant differences.

The question of sample size and power in multi-level studies is complex and is not completely resolved (Goldstein 1999; Kreft and de Leeuw 1998; Scherbaum and Ferreter 2009; Snijders and Bosker 1999). Scherbaum and Ferreter (2009) suggest that, given this situation, actual power should be estimated by considering the num-ber of groups and the average group size. Following Scherbaum and Ferreter’s (2009) approach, we estimated the power of this study at 0.67 (note, after data collection, power was calculated as 0.70, Appendix 5 provides a full explanation of the power calculations).

Measures

Response Variable: Knowledge Acquisition (Increase in Group Knowledge over Time)Previous researchers (Gupta and Govindarajan 2000; Schulz 2001) have measured perceived knowledge acquisition by asking study participants to indicate how much they learned from other business units. Following this approach, and our earlier argu-ments about the emergent nature of group knowledge, we defined the response vari-able as the increase in the group’s knowledge about four specific knowledge domains during the 6–8 months of the study. We assessed knowledge acquisition by asking each participant to identify the degree to which his or her knowledge of each domain had changed using a scale (Appendix 1, Annex 1) with the following categories: no change (1); increased a little (2); moderate increase (3); and increased a lot (4). We then averaged the scores across all individuals (within each group) to represent the group score. This approach is consistent with approaches taken by other researchers (e.g., Boynton, Zmud, and Jacobs 1994; Gupta and Govindarajan 2000; Matusik and Heely 2005; Schulz 2001; Szulanksi 2000) and with recommendations provided by Kozlowski and Klein (2000) for the measurement of unit-level constructs within a multi-level framework.

To define the knowledge domains, we followed the lead of Van den Bosch, Volberda, and de Boer (1999) as well as Schulz (2001) who identified a number of standard knowledge domains of interest to organizations. These included knowledge of markets, knowledge of processes, and knowledge of products and services. In our initial meetings with managers whose groups participated in the study, the suggestion was made that the “market” domain be changed to “clients,” a term more appropri-ate in the public-sector context. We were also asked to add “technology” as a spe-cific knowledge domain. Pretests with 39 employees and with managers of all groups participating in the study confirmed that these four knowledge domains—clients,

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



processes, services, and technology—were indeed appropriate as general knowledge domains relevant to their work.

Predictor Variable: Prior-Related KnowledgeBased on research in occupational settings, which suggests that respondents can self-assess along a continuum of expertise if specific anchors are available at each point on the continuum (Moyer 2001), we used a competency-assessment model to measure this variable. The scale (Appendix 1, Annex 2) included four points (beginner (1); intermediate (2); advanced (3); or expert (4)) with specific anchors (i.e., descriptions of each of the points on the scale). Participants were asked to rate their current knowledge about each of the above-referenced domains using this scale. The averaged scores for individuals for each domain were used as the group score.

Self-assessments are thought to be prone to leniency bias. However, research demonstrates that these assessments are often as effective as, if not superior to, external assessments or test scores (Fox and Dinur 1988; Randall, Ferguson, and Patterson 2000; Shrauger and Osberg 1981). Mabe and West (1982) and Jones and Fletcher (2002) demonstrated that the conditions under which self-assessments are conducted impact rating accuracy. These studies indicate that when questionnaires include specific behavioral descriptions, where instructions guarantee the anonym-ity of assessment and where ratings have no impact on the individual’s performance appraisal, assessments tend to be more accurate. Since respondents in this study were guaranteed anonymity, since the assessments had no bearing on their performance appraisals, since specific behavioral anchors were provided and since we used aver-aged individual scores at the group level thus ensuring anonymity, we were satisfied that the self-assessment would provide a reasonable measure of prior knowledge and of knowledge acquisition.

Predictor Variable: Homogeneity of Prior-Related KnowledgeThis variable was measured using the standard deviation of the prior-related knowl-edge scores. In this case a higher standard deviation indicated lower homogeneity of prior-related knowledge.2

Moderator Variable: Middle-Management PracticesWe defined a “middle manager” as a manager occupying a role falling within the range from two levels below the head of the organization to one level above super-visory management (Huy 2001). Nine managerial behaviors were extracted from the literature (Applegate 1995; Bartlett and Ghoshal 1998; Gunther-McGrath 2001; Jackson and Humble 1994; Janczak 1999; Kanter 1982; Nonaka, Konno, and Toyama 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Zahra and George 2002; Zuboff 1988) to create the questionnaire that was used (Appendix 1, Annex 3). Face validity of the scale items was provided by managers who participated in this study and by the pretest. Participants used a five-point scale to indicate how often their manager (i.e.,

2 This approach was adopted based on advice from statistician Dr. Roland Thomas.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



the manager to whom they reported) engaged in these behaviors. Anchors used in the five-point scale included: not very often = 1; sometimes = 2; frequently = 3; very often = 4; and continually = 5. The overall reliability of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.89.

Predictor Variable: Knowledge ApplicabilityTo contextualize the term “knowledge relevance,” we asked respondents to rate the degree of applicability of their new knowledge on a five-point Likert scale (Appendix 1, Annex 1) where low applicability = 1, moderate applicability = 3, and high applicabil-ity = 5. Applicability in this case referred to the immediate usefulness of knowledge for their work tasks.

Control VariablesWe controlled for two specific potential confounding variables in our analysis: task complexity and source of knowledge. A substantial body of research demonstrates that managerial behavior can vary according to the complexity of the work being done (Brown and Miller 2000). Task complexity was measured using a two-item nine-point scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81) developed by Brown and Miller (2000). This scale asked participants to rate the difficulty and challenge implicit in their work. Task com-plexity was estimated by averaging the results for the degree of difficulty and challenge.

Secondly, Johnson (2000) and Meckler (2001) determined that some sources of knowledge are more accessible to employees than others. We therefore reasoned that the use of substantially different sources by different groups could be a confounding factor. The sources of knowledge were quantified by asking respondents to indicate the different sources used in multiple response format (Appendix 4).

AnALYSIS OF dATA

The data were analyzed using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) program (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992).3 Following guidelines provided by Bryk and Raudenbush (1992), the data were first examined through a one-way random-effects ANOVA to explore the between- and within-group variance. An intraclass correlation (ICC(1)) comparing within-group variance to total variance was then calculated. This statistic estimates the amount of variance in an individual response that is attributable to group membership (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Castro 2002). In situations where the ICC is minimal, group membership has little effect, thus indicating that the data could be analyzed using ordi-nary least squares regression (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992; Snijders and Bosker 1999).

RESuLTS

description of the Sample

The study comprised of 179 participants from 28 work groups. The participants had, on average, 8 years of tenure in their respective organizations and 2.6 years

3 Appendix 5 provides additional detail on the analytic methods.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



in their respective groups. The sample was composed of 54% males and 46% females. Seventy percent were categorized as “professional” staff; the others were either supervisory managers (20%) or support staff (10%). Seventy-four percent of the groups reported to managers three levels below the head of the organiza-tion. The other 26% reported to level 2 managers (two levels below the head of the organization).

We first assessed the impact of potential confounding variables. In addition to task complexity and source of knowledge, the impact of the tenure of the respond-ent in the group and in the organization and the impact of the size of the group were assessed. No relationship between these variables and knowledge acquisition was noted (see Appendix 2 for details).

We confirmed statistically the appropriateness of aggregating the specific variables to the group level by examining the relevant ICC(1), ICC(2), and Rwg (see Appendix 5 for details). All assessments were within the required ranges suggesting that the analy-sis could proceed. Homogeneity of prior-related knowledge was calculated from the variance of the prior-related knowledge scores. As such, we interpreted this measure as a global-unit construct for which aggregation statistics are not relevant (Kozlowski and Klein 2000).

Hierarchical Linear Models

To create the hierarchical regression models, we first examined the unconditional model (with no predictors) to test for ICC and to examine the between-group vari-ance (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). As mentioned above, the ICC for the dependent variable was calculated at 0.16 with significant between-group variance (p < .001).

The scatterplots in figure 2 depict standardized distributions of the means versus standard-deviation scores for all 28 groups. No discernable pattern emerges except for the fact that groups delivering IT services (gray squares) tend to cluster together to a greater extent than those delivering business solutions (black squares). This is under-standable in that the business-solutions groups in the study delivered a broader range of services (from policy advice to administrative support), while the IT services groups tended to provide a narrower range of services.

Table 1 provides the null and two additional models showing that applicability of knowledge and homogeneity of knowledge are related to knowledge acquisition. The coefficient for applicability of knowledge varied among the groups (p = .001) and therefore it was appropriate to examine cross-level interactions between man-agement practices and knowledge applicability. Specifically, this hypothesis sug-gested that the relationship between knowledge applicability and knowledge acquisition would vary depending on the practices of middle managers. This rela-tionship was shown to be significant (0.215, p < .05), meaning that, as managers more frequently display the behaviors identified in the management practices scale, the strength of the relationship between knowledge applicability and knowledge acquisition increases.

The concept of R2 is not applicable in HLM but an approach referred to as “proportion reduction in error” (PRE) can be used to estimate the percentage of vari-ance explained (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992). The PRE for the hypothesized model,

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



estimated by comparing the total variance for the null model to the total variance for the hypothesized model, was 6.5%. The PRE for the Model 2 was calculated as 8.6%.

dISCuSSIOn

This study examined the determinants of work-group knowledge acquisition in public-sector organizations. Hypothesis 1 proposing a positive relationship between prior-related knowledge and knowledge acquisition was not supported by the data. Prior-related knowledge is considered to be a precursor of knowledge acquisition (Cohen and Levinthal 1990) in that it provides a cognitive base for new knowledge. This argument seems reasonable from the standpoint of cognitive psychology. From a motivational perspective, a counter-argument can be made that, if someone is

Figure 2Scatterplot of Groups Using Standardized Variables.Note. X axis = men, Y axis = standard deviation. Dark gray = Information technology services, black = business solutions, white = training, light gray (border) = research.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



already knowledgeable about a particular domain, he or she is less likely to seek out new knowledge about that domain. Therefore, while scant current knowledge might obstruct recognition of the value of new knowledge, a strong base of current knowl-edge might attenuate the individual’s motivation to acquire more.

Previous research did demonstrate positive associations between prior-related knowledge and absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Gupta and Govindarajan 2000; Szulanski 2000; Tsai 2001) in private-sector organizations. These organizations, however, engage in an ongoing competitive race to develop new products and services. Public-sector organizations, by contrast, tend to be process focused. Once the process has been mastered (that is, the current state of knowledge provides for adequate performance according to departmental or central-agency directives), the incentive for knowledge renewal might not be as pronounced.

Hypothesis 2, which proposes that knowledge applicability influences knowledge acquisition, was supported by the data. This finding is consistent with absorptive capacity theory, which suggests that understanding the value of knowledge motivates its acquisition (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Lane and Lubatkin 1998; Todorova and Durisin 2007). Indeed, Sessa and London (2008) have pointed out that “the group will typically only learn if it needs to in order to do its work” (p.555). On this point of valu-ing knowledge related to the work of the group, little difference likely exists between the private and public sectors. Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) seminal work suggested that private-sector organizations invest more heavily in R&D when they perceive a need to better absorb external knowledge. Similarly, Todorova and Durisin (2007) argue that the perceived value of knowledge is fundamental to absorptive capacity: group members must first understand the importance of knowledge to their work if they are to acquire it. The fundamental difference between the two sectors likely lies in the pace and importance of knowledge. As mentioned above, private-sector firms must continually stay ahead of competitors, so the pressure to learn is constant. In addition, technological spillover is of concern to companies: ensuring that competi-tors do not gain access to proprietary knowledge is important. Therefore not only is the pressure to learn significant, firms also compete to capture new knowledge first (consider applied research for new medications) and then protect it (through patents for example).

Table 1Hierarchical Linear Models

Variable Null Model Model 1 Model 2

Individual level Intercept 2.45*** (0.06) 2.44 (0.06) 2.44 (0.06) Level of prior-related knowledge — −0.04 (0.09) — Applicability of knowledge — 0.167*** (0.04) 0.170** (0.05)Group level Homogeneity of prior knowledge — −0.479** (0.22) −0.560** (0.22) Middle-management practices — 0.215* (0.10) 0.216 (0.11) Percent reduction in error (versus null model) — 6.5 8.6 Deviance 317 310 306Note: aEmployee n = 179, group n = 28. Entries in table 1 are estimates of fixed effects with robust standard errors (in brackets).*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Hypothesis 3, which proposes a positive relationship between homogeneity of knowledge and knowledge acquisition, was supported. This finding is consistent with the literature suggesting that knowledge sharing is an important factor in building the collective knowledge of a group (Edmonson 1999; Wilson, Goodman, and Cronin 2007). Research on knowledge management in public-sector organi-zations similarly suggests that knowledge transfer within organizations is a peo-ple-intensive process (Hazlett, McAdam, and Beggs 2008; Rubenstein-Montano, Buchwalter, and Liebowitz 2001). This notion raises the question of the homoge-neity of group members. Presumably, those hired with similar educational back-grounds for example, might have a high degree of homogeneity of knowledge and therefore share knowledge more effectively. On the other hand, regardless of educational background, the length of time groups have been together, and the degree to which they participate in team-building activities might well develop homogeneity of knowledge. The study did not examine group dynamics to this level of detail, so it’s not possible to draw conclusions about differences between the private and public sectors, but clearly there is room to examine the degree to which group dynamics might influence a leveling out of knowledge among group members (Knapp 2010)

Hypothesis 4, which proposes that middle-management practices would moder-ate the influence of knowledge applicability, was also supported. The literature sug-gests that middle managers play a key role in connecting and transferring knowledge across organizational boundaries (Ainsworth, Grant, and Iedema 2009). This finding suggests that the group’s direct manager plays a role in influencing their perceptions of the applicability of knowledge. Within the private sector, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identified middle managers as “knowledge engineers” who kick start knowl-edge creation. They do so by connecting the front-line workers to organizational strategy to customer requirements. In this study, we explored two main sets of mid-dle-management practices: sharing of strategic information and group maintenance activities. These are more or less consistent with the role defined by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) for middle managers as discussed above. The public-sector groups in this study did have specific customers (internal to their organizations) to whom they delivered services. It would therefore appear that some similarity in the role of mid-dle managers might exist between the private and public sectors in situations where definable clients are involved. In situations where “public goods” are being delivered (for example, national defense), the role of middle managers might well be different.

There are several practical implications of this study. First, in order to enable knowledge acquisition by work groups, public-sector organizations should pay closer attention to the roles of middle managers relative to the behaviors defined in this study (for example, clarifying strategic objectives and current performance, and encourag-ing communication and sharing among group members). If these managers influence the group’s perception of the importance of new knowledge or act as catalysts for the search for knowledge, it is important that they (i.e., the middle managers) be involved in strategy formulation and that they understand the organization’s strategic direction (Thakur 1998). In addition, the development of middle managers, especially in terms of their roles as “integrators” between senior management, front-line staff, and service recipients, should be considered.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Second, if common knowledge is a precursor of group-level knowledge acqui-sition, organizations should consider the use of group-based training programs to develop a strong foundation of common knowledge. In many public-sector organiza-tions, training is individually designed and delivered, which means that group mem-bers do not have common understandings of key issues. A “leveling out” of knowledge delivered through group-based training programs might help to stimulate faster and more effective knowledge sharing.

We point out that the overall model provided a relatively small PRE (6.5% in model 1 and 8.6% in model 2), thus suggesting that a variety of other factors are likely involved. For example, the organization’s general cultural atmosphere (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) and a myriad of factors such as compensation and organizational commitment that influence an individual’s personal motivation to learn all play a role in stimulating knowledge acquisition. Nevertheless, the findings do provide a basis for broader exploration.

COnCLuSIOnS

The purpose of this study was to examine the determinants of knowledge acquisi-tion of groups in public-sector organizations based on the premise that the perfor-mance of these organizations depends to some degree on knowledge processes. The study has contributed to the literature on knowledge management in public-sector organizations by introducing the notion of absorptive capacity and by focusing on work groups and on the role of middle managers in enabling knowledge acquisition.

The findings lead to a number of theoretical implications. The fact that the actual level of prior knowledge was not found to be a strong determinant of acquisition sug-gests that, as noted by Stock, Greis, and Fischer (2001), the relationship between prior-related knowledge and knowledge acquisition might be U-shaped: “too little” or “too much” knowledge might obstruct further knowledge acquisition. Hedberg (1981), for example, suggests that “unlearning”—eliminating obsolete knowledge—is a precursor to organizational learning. This observation might be even more important in public-sector organizations where no external stimulus (such as the competitive market that is an essential element of the private sector) exists to motivate the search for knowledge. Therefore, recognition of knowledge obsolescence might be a fruitful area for further theoretical exploration, particularly in the field of public management.

The role of middle managers is another important area for consideration. In this study, we aggregated results from nine management practices. It is likely, however, that some practices are more important than others depending on the organization, the level of competence of staff, and the maturity of the group. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that many organizations now operate in data-rich environ-ments. Given the complexity of the public-sector environment, the ability of indi-viduals and teams to focus is becoming increasingly important. Additional research is needed in public management to better specify the management practices that enable groups to cut through the clutter and focus on knowledge that is directly relevant to their work.

These findings should be interpreted in light of the limitations of the study. Although we were careful to follow accepted practices in using self-reports to assess

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



both current knowledge and the change in knowledge over time, additional studies using objective measures of knowledge would enable a more detailed examination of the issues raised in this paper. In addition, given the complexity of sample sizes and power calculations in multi-level studies, future studies with larger sample sizes would help to corroborate the findings of this study. Finally, the work groups in this study were involved in knowledge-intensive work; therefore, the findings might not apply to groups involved in other occupations and, it is possible that the 6–8 month time frame for the study was somewhat restrictive in the amount of learning noted. As mentioned earlier, however, it was important to balance the time allotted for learning with the risk of attrition of participants.

Notwithstanding the limitations, we believe that the study makes several impor-tant contributions to the literature. If it is true that knowledge processes in public-sector organizations are primarily socially mediated, then, despite the importance of the availability of repositories of codified information, human aspects such as the behavior of middle managers and the interaction of group members with each other within the context of their tasks are critical factors enabling the capture and use of such knowledge. The salient aspects highlighted by this exploratory study are as follows: the role of managers in directing the attention of groups to important knowledge, the impact of knowledge applicability, and the role of common knowl-edge. While private-sector organizations might be pressured to learn by the nature of their competitive markets, public-sector organizations, despite the best efforts of NPM, do not experience the same degree of competitive pressure. Therefore, a sound understanding of the organizational factors that drive knowledge acquisition might be more important for public organizations. These are all issues that ought to be further explored.

Finally, given the growing emphasis on responsiveness, accountability, and transparency in public management, the importance of knowledge processes for organizational effectiveness has been recognized (Harvey et al. 2010; Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2001). Sustained theorizing to enable better understanding of how knowledge is effectively captured and applied requires the development of theo-retical frameworks that provide novel insights into public management. This study suggests that absorptive capacity could be a useful lens through which such insights might be generated.

APPEndIx 1: Measurement Instruments

Annex 1: Knowledge Acquisition

Referring to the knowledge domains you identified in the initial meeting, please indicate the extent of change in your knowledge in this area and the source of information received. In addition, please provide an assessment of how applicable the information is to your work.

To fill in the data, please place a check mark (√) in the cell corresponding to how much you think your knowledge of the specific domain has increased over the past 6–8 months.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Knowledge Categories

No Change

Increased a Little

Moderate Increase

Increased a Lot

Sources of Information*

Applicability to My Work (1 = not very applicable, 5 = highly applicable)

Knowledge of clientsKnowledge of

products and services

Knowledge of processes

Knowledge of technology

* Legend for sources of information.

1.Formal training programs2.Information gathered from Intranet3.Information gathered from Internet4.Self-study5.Information gathered from direct conversation with colleagues6.Information gathered through direct conversation with managers7.Clients

Other (please identify)——————————————————————————

Annex 2: Prior-Related Knowledge

Please assess your own knowledge on the following topics. The rating scale is as follows:

Rating

1 Beginner I have w knowledge of this topic. I would not be comfortable talking with my colleagues about it in any real depth.

2 Intermediate I understand basic facts and how these evolved. I am able to converse with colleagues on a number of key issues.

3 Advanced I have a thorough understanding of all facts and concepts related to this topic. I can converse easily on a wide range of issues and can solve problems related to this topic area.

4 Expert I have extensive experience in the topic area. Can coach and counsel others. Capable of writing papers and/or making presentations on the topic. Can anticipate evolution of the field and forecast long-run implications.

Knowledge Category 1 Beginner 2 Intermediate 3 Advanced 4 Expert

1 Knowledge of client2 Knowledge of products

and services3 Knowledge of processes4 Knowledge of technology

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Annex 3: Middle Management Practices and Task Complexity

Middle Management Practices

1 Not very often 2 Sometimes 3 Frequently

4 Very often

5 Continually

Develops support and acceptance for the organization’s mission statement

Helps employees understand how the mission of this organization is to be achieved

Helps to clarify the organization’s vision, mission and strategic imperatives

Provides feedback that helps to identify potential problems and opportunities

Distributes information on how the organization is performing

Encourages work groups to make decisions about problems and opportunities

Encourages team members to act on new information received

Helps to develop relationships within the work groups

Provides opportunities for self- assessment with respect to goal accomplishment

Source: Sources for the practices set out above include Applegate (1995); Bartlett and Ghoshal (1998); Gunther-McGrath (2001); Jackson and Humble (1994), Janczak (1999); Kanter (1982); Nonaka, Konno, and Toyama (2001); Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995); Zahra and George (2002); Zuboff (1988).

Complexity of Your WorkPlease rate the degree of difficulty and challenge in your work by circling the appropri-ate number on the rating scale below.

Difficulty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9easy difficult

Challenge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9unchallenging challenging

Appendix 2: Evaluation of Control Variables

The Level 1 and Level 24 correlation results for task complexity (r = 0.57, p = .450/r = −0.13, p = .510), for tenure of the individual in the organization (r = −0.06; p = .397/r = −0.13; p = .520), for tenure of the individual in the group (r = −0.02, p = .792/r = 0.050; p = .802), and for size of the group (r = 0.035, p = .646/r = 0.32; p = .093) showed no relationship with knowledge acquisition. Including these variables in the hierarchical regression model showed similar results: none of the potential con-founding variables were related to knowledge acquisition.

4 Level 1 correlations represented by the individual scores are before the forward slash, and Level 2 correlations using the data aggregated to the group level are behind the forward slash.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Appendix 3: Sources of Knowledge

Training Intranet InternetSelf- study Peers Managers Clients

Most Common Sources of Knowledge

ORG1: Group 1 0 0 3 4 6 3 2 Peers/self-studyORG2: Group 1 1 0 0 2 5 3 1 Peers/managersORG2: Group 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 2 Self-study/peersORG2: Group 3 2 4 1 5 6 5 1 Peers/managersORG2: Group 4 3 0 0 6 7 4 1 Peers/self-studyORG3: Group 1 6 7 4 5 9 7 3 Peers/managers/

intranetORG3: Group 2 6 0 0 5 10 7 0 Peers/managersORG3: Group 3 6 3 7 7 8 1 0 Peers/self-study/

intranetORG3: Group 4 3 3 5 4 7 4 0 Peers/internetORG3: Group 5 3 2 2 5 5 5 0 Peers/managers/

self-studyORG3: Group 6 1 3 0 2 2 3 3 intranet/

managers/ self-study

ORG3: Group 7 5 1 0 5 8 1 1 Peers/self-studyORG3: Group 8 2 1 0 3 6 0 2 Peers/self-studyORG3: Group 9 2 1 5 2 6 1 1 Peers/internetORG3: Group 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 NAORG4: Group 1 4 3 1 2 4 4 2 Training/peers/

managersORG4: Group 2 1 2 1 5 6 6 1 Peers/managersORG4: Group 3 1 4 2 4 6 3 1 Peers/self-studyORG5: Group 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 5 Clients/peers/

managers/ self-study

ORG5: Group 2 1 0 2 2 2 1 3 Clients/intranet/ self-study

ORG5: Group 3 0 1 2 4 4 2 0 Self-study/peersORG5: Group 4 3 0 2 2 4 3 0 PeersORG5: Group 5 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 Training/

self-study/peers

ORG5: Group 6 3 3 4 5 4 3 3 Self-studyORG6: Group 1 2 1 3 7 9 8 4 Peers/managersORG6: Group 2 3 1 0 6 6 4 2 Self-study/peersORG6: Group 3 1 2 1 2 5 5 1 Peers/managersORG7 1 2 3 4 7 5 5 Peers/managers/

clientsTotal 66 48 54 108 151 95 46

The responses on sources of knowledge indicate that “peers” was the most fre-quently used source across all groups. Managers were also quoted as a source of knowledge.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Appendix 4: Summary Statistics by Group

Group Number

Organization: Group

Group Tenure (years)

Basic Tasks


Management Practices

Knowledge Applicability


1 ORG1: Group 1 3.5 Research 2.40.58

3.790.64

2.830.68

1.830.58

2 ORG2: Group 1 2.20 Training 2.030.65

2.850.47

3.781.45

1.970.57


2.780.29

3.220.66

2.420.29

4 ORG2: Group 3 4.02 Business Solutions

1.650.79

2.230.77

3.660.88

1.530.43


2.570.61

3.280.60

2.240.49

6 ORG3: Group 1 3.37 IT services 2.860.5

3.180.57

3.960.85

2.160.38


2.530.65

3.620.89

1.970.40


3.060.66

3.331.45

1.900.65


2.500.42

3.711.06

2.210.13


2.710.64

3.411.23

2.200.34


2.710.87

3.20.96

2.10.40


2.61.09

3.870.53

1.980.30


3.370.82

3.570.69

1.900.40


2.540.49

3.051.06

1,970.40


2.560.42

3.441.27

1.990.29

16 ORG4: Group 1 1.72 Business solutions

2.250.83

2.150.82

4.330.70

20.31


2.30.81

3.131.07

3.280.55

2.420.35


2.080.82

2.540.96

3.461.0

2.250.39


20.6

2.380.80

3.720.41

2.420.50


2.230.69

2.750.82

3.821.0

2.120.14


2.890.76

2.780.67

4.620.43

2.251.09


2.060.72

2.850.93

3.670.53

2.550.60

(Continued)

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Group Number

Organization: Group

Group Tenure (years)

Basic Tasks


Management Practices

Knowledge Applicability



20.97

3.071.68

50

2.250.66


2.970.71

2.620.83

4.150.58

2.300.45


2.40.79

3.131.10

4.270.71

1.880.29


2.50.65

3.060.94

4.310.68

2.840.42


2.80.54

3.080.82

4.030.58

2.50.46

28 ORG7 1.28 Business solutions

2.40.58

2.810.48

2.830.87

1.880.31

In this table, the mean scores are shown in each cell for each group with the standard deviation below.

Appendix 5: Methodological details

Sample Size Calculations

Different approaches for power estimation can be used for different param-eters, but the regression coefficients are typically the parameters of interest (Scherbaum and Ferreter 2009; Snijders 2005). Power estimation, based on derivations from Raudenbush, Spybrook, Liu and Congdon (2005), calls for an estimation of the ICC(1), the standard error of the coefficient and the effect size. The following formula is used to estimate the z-score associated with estimated power:

z z1 1 2- --β αEffect Size

Standard Error

/

The standard error of the coefficient (γ01) is calculated as follows:

4 1( ( ))ρ ρ+ − nJ

where ρ represents the ICC, n represents the average group size and J represents the number of groups. We estimate the ICC for this study as 0.18 based on Snijders and Bosker (1999) and we expect a medium effect size of 0.50. With 28 groups and an aver-age group size of six, Z1−β is estimated at 0.39 which (using standard z-score tables) translates into a power of approximately 0.67.5

5 As tested, with an ICC(1) of 0.16, actual power was estimated at 0.70.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



EVALuATInG THE APPROPRIATEnESS OF AGGREGATIOn OF VARIABLES

The ICC(1) statistic estimates the amount of variance attributable to group member-ship. The ICC(2) statistic is a reliability coefficient that estimates the internal consist-ency of the group means in a sample. It results in an alpha coefficient and therefore scores above 0.70 are deemed acceptable (Castro 2002). The Rwg statistic tests the level of inter-rater agreement within a specific group and thus provides an assessment of whether aggregation is reasonable (i.e., low inter-rater agreement would suggest that the participants did not have similar ideas in mind when responding to the survey and therefore the appropriateness of aggregation would be questionable). No definitive rule exists for Rwg, but the 0.70 benchmark is thought to be acceptable (Castro 2002).

The ICC(1) for knowledge acquisition was calculated as 0.16, the ICC(2) as 0.76 and the Rwg as 0.78. The results for knowledge applicability were 0.12, 0.72 and 0.71, the results for prior-related knowledge were 0.11, 0.79 and 0.72, and the results for management practices were 0.16, 0.89 and 0.73. We concluded from these statistics that group membership accounted for a proportion of the variance of individual scores warranting the use of HLM (Byrk and Raudenbush 1992; Kreft and DeLeeuw 1998; Snijders and Bosker 1999), that the means were reliable enough for further statistical treatment, and that aggregation of the variables to the group level was appropriate.

ExAMInInG THE dATA FOR BIAS

To test the data for non-normality that might be introduced through response biases, we estimated skewness and kurtosis for all variables. The range for skewness was −0.09 to 0.66. Kurtosis ranged from −0.47 to 2.02. A test of the ratio of these statistics to the respective standard errors revealed that the variable of homogeneity of prior-related knowledge was leptokurtotic (higher peak and longer tails than a normal distribu-tion). Graphical inspection of the data revealed that the leptokurtosis was based on two outliers; these were removed from the data set. The analysis was rerun with the outliers removed and, although the beta coefficients changed slightly, the level of sig-nificance did not change appreciably. This result is consistent with the findings of Stevens (1996) who argues that platykurtosis will tend to attenuate the power of statis-tical tests but that leptokurtosis is not of concern unless it is noted in several variables in a study. Accordingly, we continued the analysis with the full data set.

HIERARCHICAL REGRESSIOn MOdELS

A variety of multi-level models exist. In this study, we argue that middle-management practices moderate the influence of knowledge applicability; we therefore adopt a model with the intercept and slopes of the individual-level equations as random varia-bles. Equations (A1) through (A4) provide additional detail on the regression models.

Y rij j j ij j ij ij= + ( ) + ( ) +β β β0 1 2PRK KAPP (A1)

β γ γ0 00 01 0j j ju= + ( ) +HPRK (A2)

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



β γ1 10 1j = + u j (A3)

β γ γ2 20 21 2j ju= + ( )+MPALS (A4)

where PRK = prior-related knowledge; KAPP = knowledge applicability; HPRK = homogeneity of prior-related knowledge; MPALS = management practices.

The theoretical model in figure 1 argues that work-group knowledge acquisition depends on individual perceptions of knowledge applicability and on the prior-related knowledge of these individuals. Equation (A1) depicts the individual-level model with knowledge acquisition (Yij) as the response variable. Note that the predictor variables are centered on their group means, thus converting the intercept (B0j) into the average knowledge-acquisition score for the group. The predictor variables (PRK and KAPP) represent the individual-level predictors prior-related knowledge and knowledge appli-cability respectively. During the HLM calculations, the equations are integrated, thus allowing for the simultaneous assessment of individual- and group-level predictors.

REFEREnCES

Ainsworth, Susan, David Grant, and Rick Iedema. 2009. Keeping things moving: Space and the construction of middle management identity in a post-NPM organization. Discourse and Communication 3:5–25.

Applegate, Linda. 1995. Designing and managing the information age organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Research Note.

Argote, Linda, Deborah Gruengeld, and Charles Naquin. 2001. Group learning in organizations. In Groups at work: Theory and research, ed. M. E. Turner, 369–412. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bartlett, Charles A., and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. Beyond the m-form: Towards a managerial the-ory of the firm. In The strategy reader, ed. S. Segal-Horn, 349–81. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bliese, Paul. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation. In Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations, ed Katherine J. Klein and Steve W. J. Kozlowski, 349–81. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyne, George. 2002. Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39:97–122.

Boynton, Andrew, Robert Zmud, and Gerry Jacobs. 1994. The Influence of IT management practice on IT use in large organizations. MIS Quarterly, September:299–318.

Brown, Thomas M., and Charles E. Miller. 2000. Communication networks in task-performing groups: Effects of task complexity, time pressure and interpersonal dominance. Small Group Research, 31:131–57.

Bryk, Anthony, and Stephen Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Butler, Tom, Joseph Feller, Andrew Pope, Bill Emersen, and Ciaran Murphy. 2008. Designing a core IT artefact for knowledge management systems using participatory action research in a government and a non-government organisation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17:249–57.

Carlstrom, Eric D. 2012. Middle managers on the slide. Leadership in Health Services, 25:90–105.Castro, Stephanie L. 2002. Data analytic methods for the analysis of multi-level questions: A com-

parison of intraclass coefficients, Rwg(j), hierarchical linear modelling, within- and between-analysis and random group resampling. The Leadership Quarterly, 13:62–93.

Cohen, Susan, and Diane Bailey. 1997. What makes teams work: Work group effectiveness from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23:239–90.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Cohen, Wesley, and Daniel Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:128–52.

Cong, Xiaoming, and Kaushik Pandya. 2003. Issues of knowledge management in the public sector. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1:25–32.

Cramton, Catherine. 2001. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed col-laboration. Organization Science, 12:346–71.

Davenport, Thomas, Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, and Michael C. Beers. 1996. Improving knowledge work processes. Sloan Management Review, 37:53–65.

Decuyper, Stefan, Filip Dochym, and Piey Van den Bossche. 2010. Grasping the dynamic com-plexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5:111–3.

Desouza, Kevin C. 2009. Information and knowledge management in public sector networks: The case of the US intelligence community. International Journal of Public Administration, 32:1219–67.

Dixon, Brian E., Julie J. McGowan, and Gerry D. Cravens. 2009. Knowledge sharing using codifi-cation and collaboration technologies to improve health care: Lessons from the public sector. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 7:249–59.

Dixon, Nancy. 2000. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Edmondson, Amy. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44:350–83.

Fowler, Alan, and Julia Pryke. 2003. Knowledge management in public service provision: The child support agency. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14:254–83.

Fox, Shaul, and Yossi Dinur. 1988. Validity of self-assessment: A field evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 41:581–92.

Gerlak, Andrea K., and Tanya Heikkila. 2011. Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the everglades restoration program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21:619–44.

Gibson, Christina B. 2001. From accumulation to accommodation: the chemistry of collective cog-nition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22:121–34.

Grant, Robert. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17:109–22.

Goldstein, Harvey. 1987. Multi-level models in Educational and Social Research. London: Griffen.Goldstein, Harvey. 1999. Multilevel Statistical Models. London: Institute of Education, Multilevel

Models Project, 1999. http://www.arnoldpublishers.com/support/goldstein.htmGunther-McGrath, Rita. 2001. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight.

Academy of Management Journal, 44:118–31.Gupta Robert Anil, and Vijay Govindarajan. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corpora-

tions. Strategic Management Journal, 21:473–96.Guthrie, James W., ed. 2002. Encyclopedia of education, 2nd ed., vol. 4, 1421–1452. New York:

Macmillan Reference Books. Accessed from Gale Virtual Reference Library.Hailikari, Katriina, and Anne Nevgi. 2010. How to diagnose at-risk students in Chemistry: The case

of prior knowledge assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 32:2079–95.Halligan, John. 2008. Performance management in government: International perspectives on

the challenges. Holy Grail or Achievable Quest? International Perspectives on Public Sector Performance Management, 3–10. Toronto: KPMG International.

Hansen, Morten T., Marie Louise Mors, and Bjorn Lovas. 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48:776–93.

Harvey, Gill, Chris Skelcher, Eileen Spencer, Pauline Jas, and Kieran Walshe. 2010. Absorptive capacity in a non-market environment: A knowledge-based approach to analyzing the perfor-mance of public sector organizations. Public Management Review, 12:77–97.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from

mailto:http://www.arnoldpublishers.com/support/goldstein.htm?subject=



Hazlett, Shirley Ann, Rodney McAdam, and Victor Beggs. 2008. An exploratory study of knowledge flows: A case study of public sector procurement. Total Quality Management, 19:57–66.

Hedberg, Bo. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. In Handbook of organizational design, ed. P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck, 8–27. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Huy, Quy. 2001. In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, September:72–79.Ilgen, Daniel R., John R. Hollenbeck, Michael Johnson, and Dustin Jundt. 2005. Teams in organ-

izations: From input-process-ouput models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56:517–43.

Jackson, David, and John Humble. 1994. Middle managers: New purpose, new directions. Journal of Management Development, 13:15–21.

Janczak, Sergio M. 1999. Knowledge integration: A new role for middle managers. Doctoral diss., University of Montreal.

Jansen, Justin, Frans Van den Bosch, and Henk Volberda. 2005. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48:999–1015.

Johnson, William H. 2000. Technological innovation and knowledge creation: A study of the ena-bling conditions and processes of knowledge creation in collaborative R and D projects. PhD diss., York University.

Jones, Lee, and Clive Fletcher. 2002. Self-assessment in a selection situation: An evaluation of dif-ferent measurement approaches. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75:145–61.

Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1982. The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 95–105.

Kifidu, Stella, Eugenia Petridu, and Dimitrios Mihail. 1997. The nature of middle managers’s work in the civil service: The case of Greece. In Middle Managers in Europe, eds. Yves-Frederic Livian and John G. Bourgoyne, 91–100. London: Routledge.

Knapp, Randall. 2010. Collective (team) learning process models: A conceptual review. Human Resource Development Review, 9:285–99.

Kozlowski, Steve W. J., and Katherine J. Klein. 2000. A multi-level approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In Multi-level theory, research and methods in organizations, ed. Katherine J. Klein and Steve W. J. Kozlowski, 3–88. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kreft, Ita, and Jan de Leeuw. 1998. Introducing multi-level modelling. London: Sage.Lane, Peter, and Michael Lubatkin. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational

learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19:461–77.Liebowitz, Jay. 2003. A knowledge management implementation at a leading technical US govern-

ment organization: A case study. Knowledge and Process Management, 10:254–9.Linnenbrink-Garcia, Lisa, Kevin J. Pugh, Kristin L. Koskey, and Victoria C. Stewart. 2012.

Developing conceptual understanding of natural selection: The role of interest, efficacy, and basic prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Education, 80:45–68.

Mabe, Paul, and Stephen West. 1982. Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67:280–96.

Matusik, Sharon F., and Michael B. Heeley. (2005). Absorptive capacity in the software industry: Identifying dimensions that affect knowledge and knowledge creation activities. Journal of Management, 31:549–72.

Meckler, Mark. 2001. Influences on the performance of organizational knowledge transfer, PhD diss., Florida Atlantic Univ.

Moyer, David 2001. Defining and measuring competencies: An overview of approaches. Vancouver: Click to Learn.

Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from



Nonaka, Ikujiro, Nubora Konno, and Ryoko Toyama. 2001. Emergence of Ba: A conceptual frame-work for the continuous and self-transcending process of knowledge creation. In Knowledge emergence, ed. Ikujiro Nonaka and Toshihiro Nishiguchi, 13–29. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

O’Dell, Carla. and C Jackson Grayson Jr. 1998. If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practices. New York: The Free Press.

Perry, James, and Hal Rainey. 1988. The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13:192–201.

Piaget, Jean. 1950. The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.Pilichowski, E. 2003. Results of the survey of knowledge management practices for ministries/depart-

ments/agencies of central government in OECD member countries. OECD: Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/63/2496135.ppt (accessed June 10, 2013).

Randall, Raymond, Eammon Ferguson, and Fiona Patterson. 2000. Self-assessment accuracy and assessment centre decisions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73:443–59.

Rashman, Lindsay, Erin Withers, and Jean Hartley. 2009. Organizational learning and knowledge in public sector organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11:463–94.

Riege, Andreas, and Nicholas Lindsay. 2006. Knowledge management in the public sector: Stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10:24–39.

Rubenstein-Montano, Bonnie, Judah Buchwalter, and Jay Liebowitz. 2001. Knowledge manage-ment: A US social administration case study. Government Information Quarterly, 18:223–53.

Sarin, Shikhar, and Christopher McDermott. 2003. The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application and performance of cross-functional new product develop-ment teams. Decision Sciences, 34:707–39.

Scherbaum, Charles A., and Jennifer M. Ferreter. 2009. Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modelling. Organizational Research Methods, 12:347–67.

Schulz, Martin. (2001). The uncertain relevance of new knowledge: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44:661–77.

Sessa, Valerie, and Manuel London. 2008. Interventions to stimulate group learning in organiza-tions. Journal of Management Development, 27:554–73.

Shrauger, Sidney J., and Timothy M. Osberg. 1981. The relative accuracy of self-prediction and judgments by others in psychological assessment. The Psychological Bulletin, 90:322–51.

Snijders, Tom. 2005. Power and sample size in multi-level linear models. In Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioural science, ed. Brian S. Everett and David S. Howell, vol. 3, 1570–3. Chichester: Wiley.

Snijders, Tom, and Roel Bosker. 1999. Multilevel analysis. London: Sage.Spender, J-C. 1996. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic

Management Journal, 17:45–62.Stevens, James. 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Stock, Gregory, Noel Greis, and William Fischer. 2001. Absorptive capacity and new product devel-

opment. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12:77–91.Szulanski, Gabriel. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.

Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82:9–27.Thakur, Manab. 1998. Involving middle managers in strategy making. Long Range Planning,

31:732–41.Thomas, Robin, and David Dunkerley. 1999. Janus and the bureaucrats: Middle management in the

public sector. Public Policy and Administration Review, 14:28–41.Todorova, Gergana, and Boris Durisin. 2007. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization.

Academy of Management Review, 22:774–86.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/63/2496135.ppt



Tsai, Wenpin. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44:996–1004.

Tsoukas, Haridimos, and Efi Vladimirou. 2001. What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38:973–93.

Van den bossche, Piet., Wim.H. Gijsealaers, Mien Segers, Paul A. Kerschner. Social and cogni-tive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments team learning beliefs and behaviours. Small Group Research, 37:213–26.

Van den Bosch, Frans, Henz Volberda, and Michiel de Boer. 1999. Coevolution of firm absorp-tive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10:551–68.

Van Dooren, Wouter, Geert Bouckaert, John Halligan. 2012. Performance management in the public sector. New York: Routledge.

Verkasalo, Matti, and Pentti Lappalainen. 1998. A method of measuring the efficiency of the knowl-edge utilization process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45:414–23.

Willem, Annick, and Marc Buelens. 2007. Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17:581–606.

Wilson, Jeanne, Paul Goodman, and Matthew Cronin. 2007. Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32:1041–59.

Zahra, Shaker A., and Gerard George. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27:185–203.

Zarraga, Celia, and Jaime Bonache. 2005. The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self-managed teams. Organization Studies, 25:661–81.

Zuboff, Shoshana. 1988. In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York, NY: Basic Books.

at University of O

ttawa on A


Dow

nloaded from


Work group knowledge absorption in public sector organizations

Documents

Transcript of Work group knowledge absorption in public sector organizations