moving organizational knowledge into the future

Moving Organizational Knowledge Into The Future Zeller Donna

1

Moving Organizational Knowledge Into The Future**• For reasons ranging from employee work / life balance to business cost-efficiency

and productivity, the number of organizations offering a virtual work option is increasing.

• The expansion of the virtual office workforce is a global initiative; thereby, supporting the significance of research to understand the implications for • leadership in the evolving processes of knowledge management; i.e. creation,

sharing, learning, and unlearning; • the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs); • the need for revised human resource policies; • as well as the effects of power, politics, and conflict, in multicultural corporate

operations.

• **See paper at https://independent.academia.edu/DonnaZeller


2

Case Study: Organization Description and Key Position • In 2013, when I first interviewed Stevie:

• She had started working for a national insurance company. • The company was just beginning to develop a virtual office workforce. • Although the company had been planning the virtual work option, they had no

official policy or procedures in place. • That has since changed; both policies and procedures have been developed;

however, as for many organizations, the transition to virtual work continues to be an ongoing process.

• The following information reviews some of the challenges to business operations, practices, policies, and procedures for their traditional and virtual work teams.


3

Tacit Experience and Perspective (Slide 1 of 3)• In this case study, though communications are improving between the traditional and virtual

office workers:• Problems with knowledge sharing in business processes; such as the stage of processing of the

application, file locations and appended documents, administrative decisions, and related tasks continue.

• Throughout the conversion to virtual offices, the workers’ practices in sharing tacit experience have evolved.

• Perspectives on Knowledge• The objectivist perspective:

• “Knowledge is regarded as an entity/commodity that people possess, but which can exist independently of people in a codifiable form” (Hislop, 2013, p. 17).

• Changes in procedures offers a comparison of knowledge in a codifiable form, i.e. written office procedures to print and file application forms; to knowledge that people possess, i.e. Stevie’s knowledge that, with virtual office electronic files, print-outs became an additional, unnecessary step.


4

Tacit Experience and Perspective (Slide 2 of 3)• Perspectives on Knowledge (continued)

• Practice-based perspective:• The emphasis is on the “extent to which knowledge is embedded within and inseparable from work

activities or practices” (Hislop, 2013, p. 31).• In the case study, managements’ conventional experience indicated that current methods were

working. Therefore, even though the team had work practices that proved otherwise, inquiry was not an option and the status quo was maintained. That is to say, because it differed from conventional experience, management did not accept the team’s practice-based perception of the situation. Subsequently, the team’s suggestions were proved to be correct; albeit, after considerable complaints were submitted by the insurance agents and their clients.

• Explicit and Tacit Knowledge• With explicit knowledge, knowledge is seen as something that can be independent of people.• Understanding tacit knowledge in the two perspectives: objectivist and practice-based.

• First, tacit knowledge in the objectivist perspective “is more informal, more personal and individualized” (Hislop, 2013, p. 18).

• In the practice-based perspective, tacit knowledge is developed through the daily business routines

• Practice-based relates the two, explicit and tacit, by building on the “assumption that there are tacit and explicit dimensions to all knowledge, and that they are inseparable” (Hislop, 2013, p. 3).


5

Tacit Experience and Perspective (Slide 3 of 3)• Problem Definition and Significance

• Transmitting tacit and explicit knowledge from an experienced virtual workforce to a new virtual workforce will be affected by • The organizational cultural values and assumptions. • By known issues in the virtual environment; i.e. time zone differences, challenges in team building

due to the depersonalized nature of online communication, and misinterpretations of electronic messages.

• Potential Roadblocks• Organizational Culture: To facilitate knowledge sharing, the organization will need to develop a

culture that encourages collaboration, communication, and trust (Montero & Montero, 2010, p. 13).

• Communication Tools: In the virtual world, this means selecting appropriate tools for communication, developing a strategy for following-up on communication, and adhering to guidelines (Montero & Montero, 2010, p. 13).

• Interpretation: Nonetheless, particularly in online collaboration, different interpretations are likely to occur; thereby, influencing knowledge sharing


6

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (Slide 1 of 4)

• What is Knowledge Management (KM)?• Hislop (2013) ascertains that “there is not one single way for an organization to manage knowledge” (p. 55).

• Very early on in the KM movement, Davenport (1994) offered the still widely quoted definition:• "Knowledge management is the process of capturing, distributing, and effectively using knowledge“(Koenig, 2012,

para. 1-5)• A few years later, the Gartner Group created another second definition of KM, which is perhaps the most frequently

cited one (Duhon, 1998):• "Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing,

evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise's information assets. These assets may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously un-captured expertise and experience in individual workers“(Koenig, 2012, para. 1-5)

• What are Knowledge Workers?• “Anyone whose work involves the use of a reasonable amount of tacit and contextual and/or abstract and/or contextual

knowledge” is, to some extent, a knowledge worker (Hislop, 2013, p. 73).

• Challenges for Knowledge Management• Issues of “power, politics, and conflict” as it relates to learning (Hislop, 2013, p. 94):

• (1) Creativity or ‘original problem solving’ problems when there are no policies (tacit or explicit) in place (Hislop, 2013, p. 71).

• (2) Virtual team knowledge is likely to be contextual; largely tacit and definitely not yet generalizable to the rest of the organization (Hislop, 2013, p. 71).

• (3) Intellectual skills are utilized in that virtual workers may have to “synthesize different ideas” (Hislop, 2013, p. 71).


7


• How an Organization Learns

• This research on organizational learning, specifically as it relates to the recently implemented virtual structure, will analyze• “Exploration-based learning: the development and assimilation of new knowledge” and • “Exploitation based learning: the utilization of existing knowledge” (Hislop, 2013, p. 87-8).• Competency traps: areas where the organization may be locked into routines that were previously successful

in the traditional office environment; however, are not successful in the virtual offices (Hislop, 2013, p. 88).

• According to Senge (1990), the application and practice of each of the five disciplines – systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building a vision and team learning - converts the organization from one with a ‘learning disability’ to a learning organization. • This ‘learning disability’ is informed by the design or structure of the organization; the methods of

management; the analysis and description of jobs; and the practice of departmentalized, linear thinking that is enforced by personal individualistic interactions (Senge, 1990, p. 18).

• The learning disability deters the organization from viewing the structure of the entire issue; thereby, creating new problems as well as sustaining existing ones.

• Comparatively, the ability of the learning organization to see the interrelationships of the whole issue, cultivates new “patterns of thinking”, frees objectives, and integrates a continual process of learning; thereby, allowing desired results to be reached (Senge, 1990, p. 4).


8


• Facilitating Organizational Learning Processes• The practices of the learning organization are recognized as disciplines; thus, proficiency is

developed through a lifelong learning process (Senge, 1990). • Disciplines are also proposed as being personal; therefore, the change begins with the people

of the organization as opposed to an enforced top-down initiative.• Nonetheless, the transition from traditional to virtual teams requires “giving up the familiar,

embracing some level of uncertainty—which may be anxiety-inducing for people” (Hislop, 2013, p. 96). • In this transition, there can be no ‘democratic deficit’. • The “values, ideas, and interest of workers” will have to be recognized; thus,

management will need to share “power, politics, and learning” (Hislop, 2013, p. 94).


9


• Practical Organizational Application• Benefits of creating traditional and virtual teams include

• Collaboration between multiple functioning units of the case study insurance company; such as, applications processing, commissions, and customer service.

• There is improved communication and information flow, a better understanding of issues, and interdependencies between units. Generally, this “fosters knowledge transfer and organizational learning” (Brewster, Sparrow, & Vernon, 2007, p. 50).

• They develop a “competitive advantage through knowledge reuse” (codification) in their collaboration between functional units (Hislop, 2013, p. 57).

• They also have a “competitive advantage through knowledge creation” (personalization) that develops as a result of shared knowledge (Hislop, 2013, p. 57).

• For this case study, the competitive nature of the insurance market can create a strain in the areas of “improved control and co-ordination across business units;” thus, resulting in recurring functional realignments (Brewster, Sparrow & Vernon, 2007, p. 208). • On the other hand, codifying the procedures across business units from people to documents will facilitate

shared knowledge to improve control and co-ordination; particularly if the information is made available to everyone.

• Additionally, the collaborative actions of the diversified teams will encourage the “sharing of tacit knowledge between people” (Hislop, 2013, p. 57).


10

Knowledge Creation, Unlearning, and Culture (Slide 1 of 3)• Knowledge Creation Involves

• Making the individual’s information available to all and connecting that information to the organization’s knowledge system (Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006, Abstract).

• In the virtual venue, the availability and connection to the knowledge system is challenged as virtual workers lose the opportunities to informally share information during coffee breaks or at chance meetings in the hall.

• Virtual workers are deprived of those important non-verbal cues that are an indication as to whether or not a colleague is on board with an idea (Bailey, 2013, para. 3).

• Since retaining, communicating, and using pre-existing explicit and tacit knowledge, requires setting aside old habits and protocols, “new practices that accommodate both traditional and virtual workers must be created, captured, and replicated for the organization to survive” (Concordia University-Portland, EDDT634 Online Course, Week 3).

• Knowledge Creation• Nonaka’s Epistemology of Knowledge Creation Theory defines:

• (1) knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ or the individual’s knowledge as “based on their particular experiences and work practices;”

• (2) that “knowledge provides people with the ability to define and understand situations and then act in accordance with these insights;” and

• (3) that there is a “distinction between tacit knowledge that is tied to the senses, movement skills, physical experiences, intuition or implicit rules of thumb” and “explicit knowledge that can be uttered, formulated in sentences, captured in drawings and writing” (Hislop, 2013, p. 108).


11

Knowledge Creation, Unlearning, and Culture (Slide 2 of 3)• Knowledge Creation (continued)

• Nonaka’s Model of Knowledge Creation: • Knowledge is created by way of the “conversion of knowledge between the forms, tacit and explicit” (Hislop, 2013, p.

108). • There are four modes of knowledge creation:

• (1) socialization: “the conversion of tacit knowledge to new forms of tacit knowledge”; • (2) externalization: “the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge”; • (3) combination: “the integration of different forms of explicit knowledge to create new forms of explicit

knowledge”; and • (4) internalization: “the conversion of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge” (Hislop, 2013, pp. 108-9).

• “Various ba characteristics are particularly suited for the conversion of knowledge” (Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006, p. 1185):• “Interacting ba supports externalization. Here, the participants work with peers. Through dialogue, their mental

models and skills are probed, analyzed and converted into common terms and concepts” (Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006, p. 1185).

• Originating ba, when the “individuals meet face-to-face, share emotions, feelings, experiences and mental models”; is diminished in a virtual venue (Nonaka, von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006, p. 1185).

• Virtual and traditional teams practice cyber ba, whereby including additional observers such as external agents and the number of participants is not limited. Furthermore, with technology such as Webinar applications for recording the event, the meeting can be viewed at a later date. Primarily, reviewing the information can be used to encourage both traditional and virtual team members to understand that “knowledge creation/conversion is potentially infinite” (Hislop, 2013, p. 111).


12

Knowledge Creation, Unlearning, and Culture (Slide 3 of 3)• Unlearning

• Virtual offices are changing business strategic initiatives and operations – and presenting a challenge to practices and policies that were initially developed for traditional office settings.

• Three Dangers for Knowledge Creation, Learning, and Unlearning in the Transition to Virtual Work (DeHolan & Phillips, 2004)• Purposeful: Purging: Managed unlearning of established knowledge.

• In the virtual / traditional work venue, the entire workforce, including management, will need to unlearn established knowledge whereby management practices are limited to direct supervision (DeHolan & Phillips, 2004, p. 1611).

• Purposeful: Suspension: Managing to forget new knowledge.• Some new knowledge will not be advantageous; therefore, forgetting may be functional particularly “when

the new knowledge interferes with existing activities or turns out to be undesirable in some other way” (DeHolan & Phillips, 2004, p. 1610). In this case study, the office equipment did not support job functions in the virtual venue; requiring the home office personnel to forget the formal procedure and to concentrate instead on the virtual office workers’ actual needs.

• Accidental: Dissipation: The inability to retain new knowledge.• Due to the challenges for the integration of knowledge from both traditional and virtual workers, “a

successful, complex, collective action will require intensive effort focused at achieving coordination between the multiple routines performed at different levels of the organization” as well as at different locales; else new knowledge may be lost (DeHolan & Phillips, 2004, p. 1609).


13

Motivation, Differences, and Boundaries (Slide 1 of 3)• The virtual and traditional team members are challenged by the novel differences and boundaries of their

work arrangement.• The Influence of Sociocultural Factors

• Context: in which the knowledge sharing takes place as it will also “shape workers’ relations with colleagues and their managers/employers”; thus, influencing “workers’ knowledge sharing/hoarding decisions” (Hislop, 2013, p. 140).

• Social Capital: refers to “the networks of personal relationships that people possess and are embedded within and the resources people can draw on and utilize through such networks” (Hislop, 2013, p. 77).• Consummatory Capital: “sees social capital as a result of the development of social norms and identification with

a group”; and • Instrumental Capital: is “the establishment of social capital as based on reciprocal relationships” (Willem &

Scarbrough, 2006, p. 1345). • Willem and Scarbrough (2006) promote that the “consummatory view emphasizes the context of ‘shared

norms’ and ‘trust’” which results in “openness, motivation, and willingness to engage in knowledge exchange”; in an organizational framework (p. 1345-6).

• In comparison, Hislop discusses the idea of trust as based on “the distinction between trust and a person’s ‘propensity to trust’” (2013, p. 144). Additionally, Hislop presents the idea of ‘shared norms’ in the context of group identity and national culture (2013, pp. 148-9).

• Willem and Scarbrough (2006) correlate the instrumental view and the issues by connecting “power, influence, and control” to the reciprocal, networked relationships of instrumental capital; while Hislop (2013) discusses the correlations of networking and national culture on the “loss of power” in knowledge sharing (p.149).


14

Motivation, Differences, and Boundaries (Slide 2 of 3)• Boundaries and Challenges to Knowledge Sharing

• Intra-organizational: Sharing Tacit Knowledge• The text, Growing the Virtual Workplace: The Integrative Value Proposition for Telework, notes that

“Teleworking can negatively affect employees’ ability to share knowledge within the group. This is particularly true with tacit knowledge; as it is commonly shared by [face to face] interaction in the office, such as through spontaneous, informal, water-cooler type meetings” (Verbeke, Schultz, Greidanus, & Hambley, 2008, p. 16).

• Leaders throughout the organization need to build trust and encourage sharing information across the boundaries of virtual and traditional workers…without the social interactions that take place in the brick and mortar office (Verbeke, Schultz, Greidanus, & Hambley, 2008, p. 39).

• Willem and Scarbrough’s (2006) instrumental approach would emphasize creating networked ties amongst people in the organization; and the consummatory view would “recognize the beneficial effect of a context of ‘shared norms’ and ‘trust’” (p. 1345).

• However, the negative effects of the mechanisms of the instrumental view may need to be considered; that is, to recognize that “the network ties between individuals is to highlight the potential effects of politics and politicking as a mediating factor in the role of social capital” (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993, as cited in Willem & Scarbrough, 2006, p. 1346).


15

Motivation, Differences, and Boundaries (Slide 3 of 3)• Boundaries and Knowledge Sharing (continued)

• Inter-organizational: Developing Trust• “Social capital…in its instrumental form reflects opportunistic and political objectives, and

promotes a highly selective form of knowledge sharing” (Willem & Scarbrough, 2006, Abstract). • Conversely, extant research indicated that social capital had a benevolent effect on knowledge

sharing; that it “facilitated the development of intellectual capital by affecting the conditions necessary for exchange and combination of knowledge to occur” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1988:247, as cited in Willem & Scarbrough, 2006, p. 1344).

• In inter-organizational alliances, the “group pressure, power, and politicking” of the instrumental view would require boundary spanners with an ability to “bridge different social networks that would otherwise not be connected” (Willem & Scarbrough, 2006, pp. 1347-8).

• Strategic Initiatives• Workers fear exploitation and loss of power, if and when they decide to voluntarily share their

tacit knowledge (Hislop, 2013, p. 137). • To add to the predicament is those workers who ‘free ride’; that is they never contribute to the

development of knowledge.• Newell, David, and Chand (2007) suggest two ways to build and to foster trust: (1) “address the

situational factors that ferment distrust”; and (2) “implement trust-building actions that exploit the swift trust to build a trusting environment” (p. 167).


16

Politics, Heuristics, and Attribution (Slide 1 of 2) • Power, Perception, Politics and Knowledge

• The “pragmatic boundaries are difficult and complex to span:• Due to differences of interest that exist between communities”; • Such as those who support the traditional workplace and those who support a virtual office policy

(Hislop, 2013, p. 183).• To accommodate the changes, the corporate culture must support decision-making processes that do

not fall into the “anchoring traps” • Anchoring traps “tend to give too much weight to past events and not enough weight to other

factors” (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1998, para. 9).• Avoidance of anchoring traps is particularly applicable to the “situations characterized by the

[global] marketplace as historical anchors can lead to poor forecasts and, in turn, misguided choices” (Hammond et al, 1998, para. 9).

• The culture must encourage “the transferral and sharing of knowledge to allow the [ongoing] development of a common knowledge base, agreed upon and understood by all communities” (Hislop, 2013, p.183).


17

Politics, Heuristics, and Attribution (Slide 2 of 2) • Workable Solutions

• Policy Development• Ardichvili, Page, and Wentling (2003), found that workers were likely to contribute knowledge within a virtual

community of practice when the organization provided:• “a working environment conducive to positive knowledge sharing • and where people were unwilling to act opportunistically or excessively selfish” (Hislop, 2013, p. 147).

• There must be successful development of the logistics of the virtual work initiative as well as to the development of ‘soft’ practices to encourage trust and knowledge sharing.

• The logistics; i.e. reduced turnover, increased productivity, are fairly easy to assess; however, the assessment of the development of a cross-boundary knowledge base may not fully identify the influence of trust on the loss/gain of shared knowledge.

• Management• Since management no longer observes the work in process, the previously shared syntax, language,

interpretations, and understandings are subject to change. • The development and use of appropriate boundary objects can assist management to improve mutual

understanding and to facilitate the development of social relationships (Hislop, 2013, p. 180).• Standardized forms and models, shared user interfaces, maps of interdependencies between

communities


18

Possibilities of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (Slide 1 of 2)

• Four Approaches• The Objectivist Perspective

• Conceptualizes knowledge as a discrete object that can be separated from people, translated to an explicit form, and is based on a transmitter-receiver model.

• In this perspective, ICTs play a key role in sharing the codified knowledge and in knowledge management (Hislop, 2013, pp. 206-7).

• “Two specific ways in which ICTs can facilitate knowledge management processes” (Hislop, 2013, p. 207). • First, there is the codification approach, where after the ‘best practice’ approach is identified,

the information is coded and distributed to all relevant staff members (Hislop, 2013, p. 207).• Then, there is the extended library approach. This system requires a categorization and

structuring of information that can be searched by topics, categories, and key words, by end users (Hislop, 2013, p. 207).

• The Practice-Based Perspective• “The sharing of knowledge involves two people actively inferring and constructing meaning from a

process of interaction” (Hislop, 2013, p. 209).• Expertise maps approach allows the end user to search for people who have “relevant knowledge

and expertise” (Hislop, 2013, p. 209).


19

Possibilities of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (Slide 2 of 2)

• Codification vs. Transactive Memory Systems• Codification assumes that knowledge can be stored for reuse in a searchable, central repository. • Transactive memory recognizes that teams retrieve knowledge from different domains, and that they

then use that knowledge to develop their own codified knowledge-base (Hislop, 2013, p. 210).

• In the virtual venue, the availability and connection to knowledge systems is challenged as virtual workers do not benefit from those chance meetings where information is shared informally (Bailey, 2013, para. 3). • There is a need for central repositories of codified information that contain reusable knowledge; as well

as practice-based resources, such as expertise maps to encourage interaction.

• Web 2.0 Technologies• “Covers a range of technologies; including blogs, wikis, podcasts, information tagging, prediction markets,

and social networks”; with “new technologies constantly appearing as the Internet continues to evolve” (Chui, Miller, & Roberts, 2009, para 4).

• “What distinguishes Web 2.0 from previous technologies is the high degree of participation they require to be effective”; ultimately requiring ongoing leadership and support to utilize the resources (Chui, Miller, & Roberts, 2009, para 4).

• Web 2.0 technologies can be used to span the programmer / end-user / departmental boundaries.• New developments in “inter-functional conflict and rivalry” can undermine the use of these

technologies (Hislop, 2013, p. 143).


20

Organization Wide Strategies (Slide 1 of 2)• Human Resources

• The marked increase in the number of virtual work positions will (and should) affect the development of human resource policies and procedures.

• Challenges to human resource policies.• Performance analysis appears to be a weak link in that management continues to review employees’

performances per guidelines developed for traditional office work. • Incentives and recognition are another area where management practices need to be revised.• Training and change management procedures need to be developed and implemented. • A contributing factor is that, generally, corporate human resource departments do not have a “formal

process in place for determining which employees should be – or should not be – working from a virtual office” (Grantham, Ware, & Swanberg, 2009, p. 5).

• HR steps for long-term resolutions.• Two specific HRM practices that can help to build trust and span the multiple boundaries are training and

coaching/mentoring (Hislop, 2013, p. 223). • Training: Training can promote knowledge management, sharing, and participation in that it

“provides opportunities for self-development” (Hislop, 2013, p. 225).• Coaching / Mentoring: Both “coaching and mentoring…facilitate interpersonal knowledge sharing”;

that may, in turn, build trust and knowledge sharing between virtual / traditional teams, departments, and divisions (Hislop, 2013, p. 226).


21

Organization Wide Strategies (Slide 2 of 2)• Human Resources (continued)

• Leadership • “Establishes direction, aligns people, motivates, and inspires” (Northouse, 2013, p. 12).• Helps to create a culture that promotes a continuous process of knowledge creation,

overcome boundaries, unlearn antiquated methods, and embrace learning in a changing context.

• Transformational leadership.• Can “inspire and empower workgroups to succeed”; thereby, contributing to the development

of a culture where trust is an established practice; permitting the knowledge of the workforce to flow across boundaries without fear of retribution from management (Northouse, 2013, p. 185).

• Then again, due to the constant influx of new methods of work and knowledge, transformational leadership also requires an element of a situational leadership approach, allowing leaders to “delegate, support, coach, and direct” as needed (Northouse, 2013, p. 100).


22

Conclusion• The transition to a virtual team in this case study of an insurance company operating in a fast-based global

insurance market will require ongoing learning.• From a practice-based perspective, “the active role of management is to attempt to shape knowledge

processes to involve facilitating interpersonal communication and collaboration between people” (Hislop, 2013, p. 41). • The fact that this practice-based perspective shuns the idea for organizations to be able to develop

a “repository of codified knowledge”, as in the objectivist perspective, is partially correct. • The real issue is whether there is time allotted to keep the information up-to-date in the fast-paced

corporate environment. • Nevertheless, to position objectivist, explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge or vice versa may

encourage at least some to maintain the status quo long past its prime (Hislop, 2013).• The main reasons for the lack of success in ICT-enabled knowledge management initiatives is because

the focus has been on technology-based issues; not on social, cultural, and political factors that may impede participation (Concordia University-Portland, EDDT634 Online Course, Week 6).• Metrics might help to assure that the knowledge management process is practiced• Human Resources can be a key partner in developing a culture where there is a continual link

between the strategies and knowledge management, sharing and participation in the organization.


23

References (Slide 1 of 2)• Andriessen, E. & Vartiainen, M. (2006). Mobile virtual work. Retrieved From http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-28365-X_1.• Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal

of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77.• Bailey, S. (2013, March). How to beat the five killers of virtual working. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2013/03/05/how-to-overcome-the-five-major-disadvantages-of-virtual-working/. • Brewster, C., Sparrow, P., & Vernon, G. (2007). International human resource management (2nd ed.). London: CIPD.• Chui, M., Miller, A., & Roberts, R. (2009, February). Six ways to make Web 2.0 work. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved from

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/six_ways_to_make_web_20_work• Concordia University-Portland Online Course, EDDT634, Week 1 (2015, Fall). Retrieved from

https://cupo.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fcontent%2Ffile%3Fcmd%3Dview%26content_id%3D_189741_1%26course_id%3D_6130_1%26mode%3Dview%26framesetWrapped%3Dtrue

• Concordia University-Portland Online Course, EDDT634, Week 3 (2015, Fall). Retrieved from https://cupo.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fcontent%2Ffile%3Fcmd%3Dview%26content_id%3D_189743_1%26course_id%3D_6130_1%26mode%3Dview%26framesetWrapped%3Dtrue

• Concordia University-Portland Online Course, EDDT634, Week 6 (2015, Fall). Retrieved from https://cupo.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fcontent%2Ffile%3Fcmd%3Dview%26content_id%3D_189746_1%26course_id%3D_6130_1%26mode%3Dview%26framesetWrapped%3Dtrue

• DeHolan, P., & Phillips, N. (2004). Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Management Science, 50(11), 1602-1613.

• Fallon, N. (2014, June 25). Overcoming 4 big challenges of managing remote employees. Business News Daily. Retrieved from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/6674-mobile-workforce-challenges.html.

• Fenson, B. & Hill, S. (2003). Implementing and managing telework. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.• Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415-1436.


24

References (Slide 2 of 2)• Grantham, C., Ware, J., & Swanberg, J. (2009) World at work research: Flexible work arrangements for nonexempt employees. WorldatWork.org. Retrieved From

http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=33622.• Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 76(5): 47-53.• Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.• Kase, R., Paauwe, J., & Zupan, N. (2009). HR practices, interpersonal relations and intrafirm knowledge transfer in knowledge intensive firms: A social network

perspective. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 615-639.• Koenig, M. (2012, May). What is km? Knowledge management explained. KMWorld. Retrieved from http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-.../What-is-KM-

Knowledge-Management-Explained-82405.aspx. • Montero, P. & Montero, J. (2010). Work unchained: Workshifting and the competitive edge of the anywhere office. Retrieved From

http://www.youcanworkfromanywhere.com/reports/work-unchained-special-report.pdf.• Nemiro, J., Beyerlein, M., Bradley, L. & Beyerlein, S. (2008). The handbook of high-performance virtual teams. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.• Newell, S., David, G., & Chand, D. (2007). An analysis of trust among globally distributed work teams in an organizational setting. Knowledge and Process Management,

14(3), 158-168.• Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208.• Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership theory and practice (6th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.• Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline the art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.• Teo, T., Nishant, R., Goh, M., & Agarwal, S. (2011). Leveraging collaborative technologies to build a knowledge sharing culture at HP Analytics. MIS Quarterly Executive,

10(1), 1-18.• Verbeke, A., Schultz, R., Greidanus, N., & Hambley, L. (2008). Growing the virtual workplace: The integrative value proposition for telework. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar

Publishing Inc.• Ware, J. & Grantham, C. (2010). Managing a remote workforce: Proven practices from successful leaders. The Work Design Collaborative, LLC. Retrieved From

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefutureofwork.net%2Fassets%2FManaging_Remote_Workforce_Proven_Practices.pdf&ei=G0UFUa60BsmH0QGx6oDoCw&usg=AFQjCNEKXZd2fVqGpGCkqNfnoKzAe3htgQ&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dmQ.

• Willem, A. & Scarbrough, H. (2006). Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 59(10), 1343-70.

http://www.youcanworkfromanywhere.com/reports/work-unchained-special-report.pdf

moving organizational knowledge into the future

Leadership & Management