Sustained competitive advantage through team building:
Relationship strength and the transfer and retention of
tacit knowledge
Master Thesis
MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
Bogdan Andrei Galdea Student number: S2751062 Tel.: +40 720083834
Sustained competitive advantage through team building:
Relationship strength and the transfer and retention of
tacit knowledge
ABSTRACT
This paper has investigated the impact of team building on tacit knowledge transfer and retention. Two studies were conducted in order to reveal potential mediation effects of relationship quality among co-workers. Paper and pencil and online questionnaires were distributed to different samples of participants, namely students and real employees. It was assumed that participants with a team building intervention would experience higher levels of trust, respect and tie strength which will allow the organization to successfully tap into their unique knowledge. Both studies have confirmed that participants in the team building condition are more willing to share and receive tacit knowledge after they are made aware of the positive effects of the intervention. Although the findings point out different relationship
quality sub-constructs as mediators of the relationships between team building and tacit knowledge transfer and retention, there is general consensus that an overall high quality of
relationships at the workplace indeed mediates the effects. This paper provides empirical evidence that team building is an appropriate intervention to improve the interpersonal relations in groups and further unlock and retain personal expertise.
Table of content
1. Introduction ... 4
2. Theory ... 6
2.1. Knowledge economy and knowledge management ... 6
2.2. Tacit versus explicit knowledge ... 7
2.3. Relationship quality ... 7
2.4. Team building... 8
2.5. Conceptual Model and hypotheses ... 10
3. Methodology & Analysis ... 12
3.1. Participants and Design ... 12
3.2. Procedure and dependent measures ... 12
3.3. Data analysis... 13
3.4. Results ... 14
3.5 Study 1 – Discussion ... 21
4. Methodology & Analysis ... 22
4.1. Participants and Design ... 22
4.2. Procedure and dependent measures ... 23
4.3. Data analysis ... 23
4.4. Results ... 23
4.5 Study 2 – Discussion ... 29
5. General discussion ... 30
Reflection on results and theoretical implications ... 30
Practical Implications ... 31
Limitations and Future Research ... 32
Conclusion ... 33
References ... 35
Appendix I: Experimental manipulations ... 38
1. Introduction
In order to remain competitive in the economy, no matter whether we talk about a local or international market, a firm needs to continuously develop its human capital. The scarcity of the economic capital shall determine companies’ management to find solutions for wealth creation, and employees can be a tremendous source of added value. This is because in each employee’s Human Capital, a unique set of knowledge and abilities is embedded (Ployhart et al., 2013). In this sense, organizations need to optimally utilize their Human Capital to maintain their competitiveness.
In order to explain the setting of this study, I will first introduce the relevant concepts. A further explanation of them will be given in the Theory section.
Shaped by various working experiences, an individual’s knowledge can lead to the ability to perform better in one specific domain, also known as expertise. The increasing importance of knowledge for today’s economy has been highlighted by several studies in the field of management. For instance, Powell and Snellman (2004) have argued that it plays a crucial role for knowledge economy which relies more on knowledge rather than on physical abilities. In addition, knowledge can eventually become a factor of economic growth if it is properly managed (Romer, 1986). Yet, according to the extant literature, not all of one employee’s knowledge can easily be transferred to others. For instance, Polanyi has affirmed his conviction that “we know more than we can tell” (Polanyi, 1962, p.4), emphasizing that not all forms of knowledge can be easily made explicit. Therefore, effective Human Resource Strategies are necessary to unlock or reveal the human capital of employees, especially their unique knowledge and expertise. However, uncovering or accessing employees’ knowledge still raises challenges for HR managers to tailor their strategies.
It has also been indicated that in order to successfully manage their workforce’s tacit knowledge, companies must continue to improve the relationship quality of their employees. More specifically, researchers have shown that a high quality of this relationship is essential for tacit knowledge transfer (van Wijk et al., 2008). By contrast, the transfer of tacit knowledge could be jeopardized by poor work relationships between employees. For instance, an employee becomes less likely to share his knowledge when tensions exist inside a group. Eventually, this individual’s tacit knowledge would be lost with retirement or turnover (DeLong, 2004).
Previous researchers have focused on determining a connection between the quality of work relations and the effectiveness of the management of tacit knowledge. However, less attention has been given to those HR practices that might ease this process by influencing the relationships quality.
Thus, the present study builds on the central proposition that team building should influence the quality of the relationship between workers. Broadly speaking, team building is a frequently used intervention technique in organizational development (French & Bell, 1984). It aims to enhance the effectiveness of work teams by improving the interpersonal relations in groups and their capacity of solving problems (Buller & Bell, 1986). As tacit knowledge plays an important role for the organizations’ overall functioning (DeLong, 2004), it is both theoretically and practically important to examine how the transmission and retention of such knowledge are influenced by a team building intervention. The author hypothesizes that a team building intervention would positively impact these processes.
2. Theory
2.1. Knowledge economy and knowledge management
In the last decades, the emergence of a new science-based industry has caused rapid changes in the economy. Given the development of the knowledge economy, it has become increasingly important to manage employees’ and organizations’ knowledge. Both knowledge
management and knowledge economy are concepts shaped around the importance of
knowledge in social and economic growth (Powell & Snellman, 2004). According to the extant literature, knowledge economy emphasized the importance of knowledge or intellectual capabilities rather than of physical or natural resource inputs and their role in those shifts (Powell & Snellman, 2004).
The extant literature provides different perceptions of knowledge management (Carlsson et al. 1996). Specifically, knowledge can be considered a process or a capability. In the former, knowledge management focuses “on knowledge flow and the processes of creation, sharing, and distribution of knowledge.” (Alavi et al., 2001). When knowledge is perceived as a capability (Alavi et al., 2001), knowledge management aims at “building core competencies and understanding the strategic advantage of know-how”. A better understanding of the concept of knowledge management is revealed by Duhon’s definition (1998): “Knowledge management is a discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of the enterprise’s information assets. These assets may include databases, documents, policies, procedures, and previously un-captured expertise and experience in individual workers”. (Duhon, 1998). Its ultimate goal is to nurture a firm’s well-being and long-term viability (Wiig, 1997).
2.2. Tacit versus explicit knowledge
Two kinds of knowledge can be distinguished in the extant literature: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge refers to particular knowledge that can be easily expressed and transferred to others. It can be abstracted and shared „in the form of books” (Greenhalgh et al, 2008, page 184). For instance, the knowledge needed for installing a software program can be included in an instruction manual so that everyone interested can easily access it. By contrast tacit knowledge is harder to encrypt in instructions or procedures and consequently more difficult to share because it is shaped by personal experience (Collins, 2001).
In 1962, M. Polanyi has pioneered the idea of tacit knowledge and stressed its cognitive dimension, as a set of individual beliefs, mental schemes and values (Polanyi, 1962). Subsequent research supported his idea and has strengthened the belief that tacit knowledge cannot be transferred as easily as the explicit knowledge, because personal experience cannot be readily formalised (Greenhalgh et al, 2008).
Because it is based on experience, older workers typically have more tacit knowledge than younger employees (Ebrahimi et al, 2008). The tacit knowledge possessed by an experienced worker cannot be simply transferred to another co-worker. This is because the knowledge recipient must be trained in order to gain experience, which will finally make him able to accomplish the task (Engel, 2008). As an example, the art of negotiating with a problematic customer cannot be easily imitated by a non-experienced employee without a proper form of training.
This paper is taking in consideration the importance of tacit knowledge as an invaluable asset for a firm’s competitive advantage, an asset which cannot be imitated or bought by competitors (Johannessen & Olsen, 2003). Moreover, it aims to provide alternative ways that would ease the transmission of such personal experiences, embedded in the tacit knowledge.
2.3. Relationship quality
“doing together”. Previous research in the field of social sciences have identified aspects such as social ties, trusting relationships and value systems (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998) among the important antecedents that are commonly associated with relationship quality in research on knowledge transfer.
Tie strength reflects how close a relationship between workers is. Frequent interaction and
communication will increase tie strength. Accumulating empirical evidence supports the notion that strong ties lead to greater transfer of tacit knowledge (van Wijk et al., 2008). Trust between workers constitutes another important antecedent of transferring tacit knowledge in particular, because tacit knowledge is not amenable to enforcement by contract (Foos et al., 2006).
Finally, value systems refer to shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning – thus shared norms and values that facilitate a common understanding of collective goals. The presence of shared norms fosters tacit knowledge transfer because they specify proper ways on how to collaborate in a social system (van Wijk et al., 2008).
According to the Social Exchange Theory, interactions among employees can generate high-quality relationships. Moreover, these would eventually result in trust, commitment and loyalty (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Good relations among the participants in the knowledge exchange, characterized especially by trust in co-workers and organizational commitment, bring a major contribution for distinguishing social exchange from a simple economic exchange (Lin, 2001).
In this paper, the relationship quality will be considered the mediating variable of my conceptual model. I will use it to analyze its effects on the relationship between team-building – on the one hand - and tacit knowledge transfer and tacit knowledge retention – on the other hand.
2.4. Team building
systems (e.g., business unit or the corporation), and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries”. (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
A firm’s HR manager might consider appropriate to use a team building intervention for several reasons: One the one hand, the central assumption of team building is that is more effective to involve a team or group in planning and enforcing a change than steering it from the outside (Salas et al., 1999). A work group that experiences a team building intervention enhances its problem-solving capacity and finds solutions for its problems more easily (Buller, 1986; Salas et al., 1999). However, in order to generate creative solutions it is required to use the strenghts of as many group members (Rideout & Richardson,1989). On the other hand, previous studies have identified team building as one of the most frequently used intervention techniques in organizational development, intervention which aims to strengthen the relationship between the employees of one group (French & Bell, 1984; Porras & Berg, 1978; Salas et al., 1999). By developing strong ties, the group will eventually benefit from trust and reciprocity (Krackhardt, 1992). Due to the good internal social relations that emerge among the employees (Levi & Slem, 1995), team building facilitates the aquisition of new skills and perceptions (Salas et al., 1999).
According to the extant literature, managers can make use of four alternative models of team building, namely goal setting, role clarification, problem solving and interpersonal relations (Beer, 1980; Buller,1986; Salas et al., 1999). From these, particularly the latter is expected to increase the level of trust among employees as well their mutual supportiveness (Salas et al.1999). Yet, the previously mentioned models can all be used as components of one single team building intervention (Salas et al., 1999).
This paper builds on the idea that a properly conducted team building intervention would finally lead to a more efficient transfer and retention of tacit knowledge, an idea that stems from the SECI Model designed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1996). They have argued that tacit knowledge is better exchanged through joint activities and socialization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1996).
2.5. Conceptual Model and hypotheses
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Starting from the independent variable team building, the proposed conceptual model involves 4 hypotheses. It has been developed to test the possible connection between the effectiveness of a team building technique and the transfer of tacit knowledge and the retention of tacit knowledge, respectively. Moreover, these relationships are expected to be mediated by the relationship quality between the employees. On the one hand, the transfer of tacit knowledge among employees is expected to be improved when an effective team building intervention has been used. One the other hand, I hypothesize that the efficiency of retaining those who possess tacit knowledge will increase as a consequence of an effective form of team building. In the following, I will present the four hypotheses:
Hypotheses
H1: A team building intervention adopted by the firm leads to a more efficient transfer of tacit knowledge among team members.
The author hypothesizes that a team building intervention will have a positive impact on enhancing the tacit knowledge transfer process. As a team building intervention aims at nurturing good relationships among the employees, these would finally lead to a more successful sharing of tacit knowledge between co-workers.
H1b: The quality of the relationship is expected to mediate the effect of team building on tacit knowledge transfer.
enhance co-workers’ readiness towards personal tacit knowledge exchange with their colleagues. This will finally result in an increase of tacit knowledge sharing inside the team.
H2: A team building intervention adopted by the firm leads to a more efficient retention of those members which possess tacit knowledge.
The author hypothesizes that the retention of tacit knowledge will be facilitated as a result of a team building intervention. The tacit knowledge retention is operationalized through employees’ willingness to remain an organizational member. This operationalization logically derives from the fact that tacit knowledge resides within the individual employee (Nonaka, 1994) and the fact that if the employees leave the organization, their unique tacit knowledge will be lost (Martins & Meyer, 2012). This hypothesis is based on the assumption that a team building intervention would improve the relationship quality among co-workers. Consequently, employees should feel more committed to their colleagues and organization and be less willing to engage in voluntary turnover. Eventually, the tacit knowledge will not be entirely lost when the sender of the tacit knowledge leaves the company or retires.
H2b: The quality of the relationship among employees mediates the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge retention.
As mutual trust and strong ties developed among the participants of a team building intervention would foster the willingness of those who possess tacit knowledge to share it with other colleagues, it is more likely that this would finally lead to a more effective retention of tacit knowledge inside the firm. By contrast, the absence of a team building intervention might produce opposite results, as tacit knowledge would be lost. The author hypothesizes that the effect of a successful team building intervention on the retention of tacit knowledge is mediated by the quality of the relationship between the participants at the intervention.
3. Methodology & Analysis
Study 1
3.1. Participants and Design
In order to test the above mentioned hypotheses, the author has distributed scenario- based questionnaires to a number of two hundred and twenty student respondents from Rijkuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands.
The sample consisted of 124 men (36.5%) and 96 (28.2%) women, with a majority of 61.5% of all respondents being in the category “16 to 25 years old” and just 3.2% belonging to the category “26 to 35 years old”. Although the respondents were students, 144 (33.5%) declared that they have between 1 to 5 years of experience, while significant lower but similar percentages were recorded for “less than 1 year of experience” (15,6%) and for “5 to 10 years of experience” (15%). As the participation was voluntarly and the answers were anonymous, we can assure the participants about the confidentiality of the data collected.
The experiments were conducted in the FEB Research Lab, Rijkuniversiteit Groningen. The experimenter handed out the questionnaire to each participant at their arrival at the laboratory. Next, the participants were seated in separate cubicles where they had to fill in the paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The participants have randomly received one of the two developed scenarios, which included the manipulation of the team building variable (team building intervention vs. the absence of team building intervention). I have assured that the questionnaires were equally divided among the respondents, so that at the end I had 110 respondents which have received a scenario containing the control variable, while the other half received a scenario that did not contained the control variable.
3.2. Procedure and dependent measures
All dependent measures were assessed using 5-point Likert scales assessing agreement from
1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. First, participants have been provided with
Manipulation Check
Team building was measured using four items: goal setting, interpersonal relations,
problem-solving and role clarification. These items have been identified by the existent literature as the four components of a team building intervention (Salas et Al, 1999). The presence of the four items listed above were different in each of the two scenarios, while all the other dependent variables have stood unchanged. To create each scenario, I have adapted the items developed by Frank Friedlander (1967). Most of the items identified by Friedlander as measurments for a work group’s effectiveness are similar with those mentioned by Salas et al. (1999).
Knowledge transfer was measured with eighteen items which were factor analyzed using
principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. As indicated by the analysis, the items loaded onto 3 factors asessing the transfer of tacit knowledge, namely expertise affirmation
(three items), knowledge donation (five items) and knowledge collection (seven items). The
items have been formerly used in their work by Van de Vries, Van Den Hooff & de Ridder (2006), Grutterink, Van der Vegt, Molleman and Jehn (2013) and Holste and Fields (2010). An example item is „I regularly tell my colleagues what I am doing.” Respondents’ turnover
intentions (three items), job satisfaction (three items) and organizational identification (three
items) represent the operationalization of tacit knowledge retention.
Finally, relationship quality was measured with sixteen items items asessing the quality of the relationship among employees. The list of items was adapted from the existing statements used by Tyler and Blader (2002), Sleebos (2005), Costa and Anderson (2010) and Marsden and Campbell (1984). The factor analysis using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation yielded that the items load onto three factors, namely trust (three items), respect (seven items) and tie strength (five items). All items used in the analysis are included in the Appendix.
3.3. Data analysis
The data gathered from the experimental study was analyzed by using the statistical program SPSS Statistics Version 22. First, the intensity of relationships between the variables was measured by using analysis of variance. Two different ANOVAs were used: The first ANOVA measured the intensity of the relationship between the independent variable team
building and tacit knowledge transfer. The second one measured the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge retention.
effect of the independent variable on the mediator relationship quality, the effect of the mediator on the dependent variable and, finally, the effect of both mediator and independent variable on the dependent variable.
3.4. Results
The following section of the paper will present the results of the study described in the previous part of the paper. A more detailed view of the descriptive statistics and of the results of the analyses of variance is provided in order to draw relevant conclusions for the tested hypotheses.
Descriptive statistics
The reliability analysis perfomed on the data collected in the laboratory reflected significat Cronbach’s Alpha coeficients for each of the proposed variables. As a result, constructs were built with the items used in the questionnaires. Furhermore, those constructs were splitted into sub-constructs after a careful examination of their Cronbach’s Alpha. Table 1 provides an overview of the constructs and sub-constructs used for performing further analysis, as well as their α coefficients.
Table 1 - Overview: Reliability analysis results and constructs
Construct Sub-constructs Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items
Condition
Team building No team building M SD M SD
Relationship quality Trust .82 3 3.59 0.73 3.79 0.63
Respect .90 7 3.71 0.66 3.92 0.63
Tie Strenght .81 5 3.70 0.77 3.93 0.63
Knowledge Transfer Expertise Affirmation .89 3 3.13 0.92 3.32 0.80
Manipulation check
I have used a manipulation check item in order to verify whether or not the participants have correctly understood the given scenario. To test whether the answers were different between the two conditions, I used a χ2 test with α = .05 as a criterion of significance. The result of the test has confirmed the expected effect of team building on the manipulation check item. According to the χ2 test of independence, the differences between answers were statistically significant, χ2 (1, N = 220) = 168.07, p <0.01.
TABLE 2
Study 1 - Correlations Among Study Sub-scales
1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 5 1.Knowledge Donation __ 2.Knowledge Collection .63** __ 3.Expertise Affirmation .37** .50** __ 4.Job Satisfaction .29** .40** .45** __ 5.Turnover .29** .40** .45** 1 ** __ 6.Organizational Identifification .49** .46** .45** .49** .49** __ 7.Trust .47** .43** .43** .33** .33** .34** __ 8.Respect .47** .61** .63** .50** .50** .51** .62** __ 9.Tie Strength .51** .60** .56** .41** .41** .45** .60** .75** __ *p< .05. **p< .01. TABLE 3
Study 1 - Correlations Among Study Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Condition __
2.Age .02 __
3. Gender .08 .10 __
4.Work Experience -.01 .18** .10 __ 5.Tacit knowledge Transfer .14* .03 .09 -.02 __
6. Tacit Knowledge Retention -.06 .13 -.08 -.06 .57** __
7. Relationship Quality .18** .08 .02 -.08 .75** .56** __
*p< .05. **p< .01.
Team building and Tacit Knowledge Transfer
An ANOVA was performed to compare the direct effect of the independent variable team
building conditions. There was a significant effect of team building on tacit knowledge
transfer at the p < 0.05 level for two conditions [F(1,218) = 4.388, p = 0.37]. The η2 of .02 indicates that tacit knowledge transfer increases with 2% as a result of the team building intervention. The correlation of the two variables is shown by table 3.
Participants in the team building condition reported higher openess towards sharing tacit knowledge with their co-workers (M = 3.87, SD = 0.48) than participants in the no team building condition (M = 3.72, SD = 0.53).
The results described above can be used to conclude that team building does have a predictive value on tacit knowledge transfer variable as a whole, but not on each of its sub-variables. Therefore, it can be assumed that a team building intervention will have a positive impact on enhancing the tacit knowledge transfer process as hypothesized by the author (Hypothesis 1).
Team building and Tacit knowledge retention
An ANOVA did not reveal a direct effect of team building on tacit knowledge retention,
F = .7, p = 0.40. Surprisingly, participants in the team building condition reported a
significantly lower level of disposition to stay with the company (M = 3.59, SD = 0. 60) than participants in the no team building condition (M = 3.66, SD = 0. 61).
It can thus be concluded that controlling for team building does not directly predict tacit
knowledge retention. Thus, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Team building and Relationship Quality
I have examined the direct effect of team building on relationship quality via an ANOVA. The analysis yielded a significant predictive value of team building on relationship quality (F(1,218) = 7.150, p < 0.01 ), with an η2 = 0.32. The model explains 32% of the variance in relationship quality. In addition, the analysis revealed significant direct effects of team building on relationship quality sub-variables, p < 0.05. Participants in the team building condition reported higher levels of perveiced quality of relationship with their colleagues (M = 3.90, SD = 0.55) than participants in the no team building condition (M = 3.68,
SD = 0. 64).
Based on these results it can be concluded that team building is a predictor of relationship
quality. Overall, it can be assumed that individuals that take part at a team building
Relationship Quality and Tacit Knowledge Transfer
As mentioned in hypothesis 1a, a positive impact of relationship quality on tacit knowledge
transfer was expected. I have expected the two variables to be positively correlated (Table 2
displays the correlations) and tacit knowledge transfer to be predicted by relationship quality. For a deeper understanding I depict the results for the most significant effects of each
relationship quality sub-variables on knowledge transfer sub-variable.
Trust and tacit knowledge transfer
The correlation of trust and tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables was positive for all of the three identified sub-variables , namely expertise affirmation (r = .43, p < 0.01), knowledge
collection (r = .43, p < 0.01) and knowledge donation (r = .47, p < 0.01). Subsequently, a
linear regression analysis has been performed to investigate the effect of trust on tacit
knowledge transfer sub-variables. The findings indicate that the independent variable trust
predicts the dependent variable experise affirmation (B = .53, p < 0.01). 18.1% (η 2
= .18) of the variance in expertise affirmation is explained by invidual’s trust in co-workers. As trust increases the level of expertise affirmation also increases.
Respect and tacit knowledge transfer
As shown in table 2, the correlation of respect and tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables was also positive (r = .63, p < 0.01) for expertise affirmation, knowledge collection (r = .61, p < 0.01) and knowledge donation (r = .47, p < 0.01). Three linear regressions have been performed to investigate the effect of respect on tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables. The independent variable respect was shown to most significantly predict the dependent variable
experise affirmation (B = .83, p = .0). 39.1% (η 2 = .391) of the variance in expertise affirmation is explained by invidual’s respect felt in interacting with his/her co-workers. As
respect increases the level of experise affirmation also increases. Same effects can be noticed
for the other tacit knowledge transfer analyzed sub-variables.
Tie strength and tacit knowledge transfer
Finally, the correlation of tie strenght and knowledge transfer sub-variables was positive (r = .56, p < 0.01) for expertise affirmation, for knowledge collection (r = .60, p < 0.01) as well as for knowledge donation (r = .51, p < 0.01). Further, the effects of tie strenght on tacit
most significantly predicts the dependent variable expertise affirmation (B = .679, p <0.01). 31% (R2 = .31) of the variance in expertise affirmation is explained by individual’s relationship strength with his/her co-workers. As tie strength increases the level of expertise
affirmation also increases. These results are also significant for the other two analyzed tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables. The analysis shows that individuals that develop high
quality relationships with their co-workers engage more in behaviors that facilitate expertise
affirmation.
Relationship Quality and Tacit Knowledge Retention
The relationship between relationship quality sub-variables and tacit knowledge retention sub-variables has been investigated in a similar fashion as the relationship between
relationship quality and tacit knowledge transfer. In the following, I will summarize the most
significant effects of relationship quality variables on each knowledge retention sub-variable.
Trust and Tacit knowledge retention
As shown in table 2, trust and tacit knowledge retention were positively correlated. Furthermore, the relationship is similar for all three tacit knowledge retention sub-variables: for both job satisfaction and turnover (r = .33, p < 0.01), while the correlation between trust and organizational identification was positive and slightly stronger (r = .34, p < 0.01). The linear regression analysis has revealed that trust significantly predicts the dependent variables
job satisfaction and turnover (both B = .39, p < 0.01). 10.9% (R2 = .109) of the variance in job
satisfaction as well in turnover is explained by invidual’s trust in co-workers.
Respect and tacit knowledge retention
Respect is shown to be positively and significantly correlated with all three knowledge transfer sub-constructs. The strongest correlation was recorded between respect and organizational identification (r = .509, p < 0.01). Findings show that both turnover and job satisfaction are similarly correlated with respect ( r = .495, p < 0.01 ). The results of a
bivariate analysis indicate that respect has positive effects on knowledge retention sub-variables. First, the independent variable respect most significantly predicts the dependent variable organizational identification (B = .504, p = .0). 25.9% (R2 = .259) of the variance in
his/her co-workers. As the individual feels more respected by his colleagues the level of
organizational identification also increases. Positive effects can be noticed for the other two knowledge transfer analyzed sub-constructs, namely turnover and job satisfaction.
Tie strenght and tacit knowledge retention
Finally, tie strenght shows a similar pattern as the other two relationship quality sub-variables. The correlation between tie strength and knowledge retention sub-variables was positive for each of the three sub-variables: (r = .41, p < 0.01) for both job satisfaction and
turnover and (r = .45, p < 0.01) for organizational identification.
A linear regression analysis revealed positive direct effects of tie strenght on all tacit knowledge retention sub-variables. Yet, the independent variable tie strenght most significantly predicts the dependent variable organizational identification (B = .406, p <0.01). 19.8% (R2 = .198) of the variance in organizational identification is explained by the individual’s relationship strength with his/her co-workers. An individual’s level of identification with the organization increases when the tie strength increases.
Relationship quality as a mediator
First, a mediation analysis of relationship quality on the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge transfer was investigated. The three tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables were now considered as an overall variable, namely tacit knowledge transfer. The author predicted that an indirect relationship throught relationship quality might occur (Hypothesis 1a).
Thus, a multiple regression analysis has been performed using PROCESS macro for SPSS. PROCESS macro uses multiple mediators running in parallel in order to identify the strongest mediation effect among the mediators. Therefore, I have used team building as independent variable and tacit knowledge transfer as a dependent variable, while the mediators were
relationship quality sub-variables trust, respect and tie strenght. The results point out that
there was a reliable indirect effect of team building on tacit knowledge transfer through
respect (b = 0.069, BCa Ci [0.009, 0.137]) and tie strenght (b = 0.05, BCa Ci [0.011, 0.109]).
Finally, a Sobel test yielded that the mediation effects were significant for respect and tie
strength (p = .028 and .036, respectively) but not for trust (b = 0.02, p = 0.216, BCa Ci
[-0.001, 0.09] ).
analysis yielded a significant mediation effect of respect on tacit knowledge retention (b = 0.093, p = 0.029, BCa Ci [0.02, 0.19] ).
These findings indicate that team building has an indirect impact on tacit knowledge transfer through relationship quality sub-variables trust and tie strength. This allows concluding that hypothesis 1a is therefore confirmed. Furthermore, team building does not directly predicts
tacit knowledge retention (hypothesis 2 rejected). However, there are significant results when
the relationship is mediated by respect (hypothesis 2a confirmed). The diagrams below summarize the main findings.
b = 0.21, p =.016 b =0.33, p < 0.01
indirect effect: b = 0.069, 95% CI [0.01, 0.14]
Fig. 2 – Model of team building as a predictor of tacit knowledge transfer, mediated by respect
b = 0.23, p =.015 b =0.22, p < 0.01
indirect effect: b = 0.05, 95% CI [0.011, 0.109]
Fig. 3 – Model of team building as a predictor of tacit knowledge transfer, mediated by tie strength
b = 0.21, p =.016 b =0.45, p < 0.01
direct effect: b = - 0.19, p < 0.01 indirect effect: b = 0.09, 95% CI [0.019, 0.19]
Fig. 4 – Model of team building as a predictor of tacit knowledge retention, mediated by respect
Respect
Team building Tacit knowledge
transfer
Tie strength
Team building Tacit knowledge
transfer
Respect
Team building Tacit knowledge
3.5 Study 1 – Discussion
Previous research has identified relationship quality as an antecedent for transferring tacit knowledge among employees (Lin, 2001). In addition, there is strong evidence that the strength of these bonds will help retaining the tacit knowledge in the organization (van Wijk et al., 2008). However, less is known about the human resource management tools that would ease these processes by improving at the same time relationship between employees.
This study aimed to examine the positive effects of team building on the quality of relationships among co-workers and to further investigate potential mediating effects on tacit knowledge transfer and retention. First, this study confirms the previous findings that a high quality relationship among employees has a positive impact on tacit knowledge management (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1996). Positive effects of relationship quality on both tacit knowledge transfer and retention were found. It is important to note that the pattern of results was similar for all thee identified relationship quality antecedents, namely respect, tie strength and trust. Moreover, just the latter has failed to mediate the relationship between team building and tacit
knowledge transfer.
This study has also revealed a significant direct effect of team building on relationship quality. Participants reading the scenario containing the manipulation of team building scored higher on all three antecedents of a high quality relationship at the workplace, namely trust, respect and tie strength. Although the size of these direct effects of team building are small (below 3%), these findings are significant as the effects are positive.
The direct effects of team building on tacit knowledge transfer and on tacit knowledge retention do not follow similar patterns. While the results yielded a positive direct effect of
team building on tacit knowledge transfer (hypothesis 1 confirmed), there were no significant
direct effects on tacit knowledge retention (hypothesis 2 rejected). Apparently, the participants at the study did not perceive team building as a tool designed to enhance job satisfaction, organizational identification or turnover. Surprisingly, the mean scores for the participants taking part in the team building condition were lower than the means for the second condition. This failure might have not occurred in a real-life setting, where respondents have more work experience and might have experienced a team building intervention in their past. Study 2 might support this view as the respondents are more anchored in the labor market.
hypothetically take part at a team building intervention are prone to stay longer with their organization. Individuals that felt that they are respected in the interaction with their co-workers after a reading a scenario controlling for team building variable have more strongly expressed their intentions to remain with the organization than participants reading the no team building scenario.
Thus, the conceptual model of this paper was almost entirely replicated by this first study. Even though not all the hypotheses were confirmed, I found empirical evidence that supports the positive mediation effects of relationship quality.
Study 2
4. Methodology & Analysis
4.1. Participants and Design
In addition to the first study, the author has initiated an online survey among real employees. The aim of the second study was to draw a comparison between the answers provided by the students of Rijksuniversiteit of Groningen and the answers provided by respondents working in various organizations. The latter significantly differ from the student respondents in attributes such as age, tenure, culture or nationality. In addition, this sample could improve the internal validity of the findings by adding external validity. The respondents of the Qualtrics online questionnaire were Romanian employees from companies settled in the city of Timișoara, Romania. As some of the respondents might have encountered problems in understanding the English version of the questionnaires, they have received a version translated in the Romanian language. Otherwise, this study could have been compromised due to the potentially high number of misunderstandings and errors. In addition, I mention that the content of the questionnaires remained unchanged for both Romanian and English versions. The questionnaires were translated in Romanian language by an authorized translator.
participants were contacted by the author by e-mail or by any other existent mean (e.g. social media, telephone) and asked to fill in the online questionnaires.
Out of the 118 participants, who started the online survey, 84 participants (71%) (i.e. n = 42 per condition) completed the whole survey. As the dropout rate was quite high (29%), the uncompleted surveys were excluded from the study in order to avoid incorrect and invalid data.
As a result, the final sample fulfilled the statistical requirements of a valid sample and encompassed 84 employees. 46 (54.8%) men and 38 (45.5%) women have provided complete answers which were taken into account. Furthermore, 51 participants (60.7%) were aged over 36 years old, whereas 18 (21,4%) respondents were aged under 25 years old. With regard to the work experience, the majority of the respondents, namely 51 (60.7%) have over 10 years of work experience, followed by 17 (20.2%) with 1 to 5 years of work experience. Finally, slightly over 13% of the respondents are new entries with less than 1 years of work experience.
4.2. Procedure and dependent measures
In order to conduct this second study, the author has made use of the same experimental procedure and measures as in Study 1. This allows for a better understanding of the overall findings and furthermore will help drawing a comparison between the findings of both studies in the Discussion section.
4.3. Data analysis
Following the same experimental procedure as in Study 1, I have decided to analyze the data sample in the same fashion. The data gathered online was analyzed by using the statistical progam SPSS Statistics Version 22. Thus, a series of ANOVAs was used to measure the intensity of relationships between the variables. Each ANOVA that I have performed aimed to measure the intensity of the effect of the independent variable team building on tacit
knowledge transfer, on the one hand and on tacit knowledge retention, on the other hand.
Finally, I have also focused on determining a possible mediation effect of relationship quality. 4.4. Results
Descriptive statistics
online was analyzed in a similar way to the first study. The reliability analysis perfomed on the data collected online reflected significat Cronbach’s Alpha coeficients for each of the proposed variables. Therefore, the constructs built using the items in the questionnaires remained unchanged as compared to Study 1. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were significantly enough to use the same pattern of sub-constructs as for Study 1. Table 4 provides an overview of the constructs and sub-constructs and their α coefficients used for performing further analysis.
Table 4 - Overview: Study 2 - Reliability analysis results and constructs
Construct Sub-constructs Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items Condition
Team building No team building M SD M SD Relationship quality Trust .83 3 3.59 0.73 3.79 0.63
Respect .91 7 3.71 0.66 3.92 0.63
Tie Strenght .81 5 3.70 0.77 3.93 0.63
Knowledge Transfer Expertise Affirmation .82 3 3.13 0.92 3.32 0.80
Knowledge Donation .84 5 3.92 0.56 4.05 0.53
Knowledge Collection .84 7 4.11 0.46 4.22 0.47
Knowledge Retention Job Satisfaction .82 3 3.59 0.70 3.55 0.71
Turnover Intentions .87 4 3.59 0.70 3.55 0.71
Organizational Identification .76 3 3.78 0.62 3.66 0.67
Manipulation check
I have used a manipulation check item in order to verify whether or not the participants have correctly understood the scenario. A χ2 test with α = .05 as a criterion of significance was used in order to test whether the answers were different between the two conditions. The test has confirmed the expected effect of team building on the manipulation check item. According to the χ2 test of independence, the differences between answers were statistically significant, χ2
(1, N = 84) = 41.19, p <0.01.
TABLE 5
Study 2 - Correlations Among Study Sub-scales
7.Trust .44** .52** .41** .37** .31** .18 __ 8.Respect .54** .60** .50** .34** .30** .31** .79** __ 9.Tie Strength .50** .63** .36** .33** .26* .22* .74** .80** __ *p< .05. **p< .01. TABLE 6
Study 2 - Correlations Among Study Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Condition __
2.Age .08 __
3. Gender .0 -.12 __
4.Work Experience .08 .87** .22* __ 5.Tacit Knowledge Transfer .23* .14 -.16 -.189 __
6. Taci Knowledge Retention .28* .30** -.12 .3** .64** __
7.Relationship Quality .08 .14 -.07 .12 .63** .40** __
*p< .05. **p< .01.
Team building and Tacit knowledge transfer
The correlation depicted by table 6 shows a significant and positive relationship between the two variables. An ANOVA was performed in order to investigate the direct effect of team
building on tacit knowledge transfer. There was a significant effect of team building on tacit knowledge transfer at the p < 0.05 level, with an η2 = .052. This indicates that there is a 5.2% increase in tacit knowledge transfer as a result of a team building intervention. Consequently, the predictive values of team building on each tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables were calculated. It can be noticed that team building significantly predicts expertise affirmation and
knowledge donation, but not knowledge collection.
Team building and Tacit knowledge retention
The correlation statistic suggested that a significant relation exists between the two variables at p < 0.05 (table 6). An ANOVA revealed a direct effect of team building on tacit knowledge
retention, F = 6.93, p < 0.01. Significantly higher means for tacit knowledge retention (M =
Team building and Relationship Quality
A multivariate ANOVA yelded no significant direct effects of team building on relationship quality variable, nor on any relationship-quality sub-variable (p > 0.05). Based on the results of Study 2, it can not be concluded that team building is a predictor of relationship quality. However, an ANOVA yielded significant marginal effects of team building on two
relationship quality items measuring trust (F(1,82) = 3.65, p = 0.06, η2 = .043). Significantly higher means for relationship quality (M = 4.14, SD = .54) were recorded for the participants
in the “team building” condition as compared to those who were assessed in the “no team building” condition (M = 3.9, SD = .6). Therefore, it can be assumed that individuals that take part at a team building intervention end up by developing trust relationships with their co-workers.
Relationship Quality and Tacit Knowledge Transfer
The results of a bivariate analysis show that there is a significant relation between
relationship quality and tacit knowledge transfer at p < 0.01 (see table 6). Furthermore, there
is evidence that the relationship is significant for each tacit knowledge transfer sub-variable. A variance analysis was conducted to reveal differences in answers between the two scenarios presented in the questionnaires. The analysis yelded an F-statistic of 52.840 and a ηp2 value of
0.392. The results are significant at p < 0.01. The adjusted R2 value of 0.392 indicates that 39% of the variance in tacit knowledge transfer is due to the changes in the independent variable relationship quality. I have also investigated the potential prediction of each relationship
quality sub-variable on tacit knowledge transfer sub-variables.
Relationship Quality and Tacit Knowledge Retention
First, relationship quality and tacit knowledge retention appear to be significantly and positively correlated (r = .40, p < 0.01) as indicated by the bivariate analysis performed. In addition, each tacit knowledge retention sub-variable is significantly correlated with
relationship quality (see table 4).
Second, the variance analysis yelded an F-statistic of 15.595 and a ηp2 value of 0.16. The
results are significant at p < 0.01. The adjusted η2 value of 0.15 indicates that 15% of the variance in tacit knowledge retention is due to the changes in the independent variable
yelded positive direct effects of the independent value trust on job satisfaction (p < 0.01), of
respect on job satisfaction and organizational identification (p < 0.01) and of tie strength on job satisfaction (p < 0.01). However, all three relationship quality sub-constructs have a
positive and significant direct effects on the dependent variable tacit knowledge retention.
Relationship quality as a Mediator
First, the author has performed a mediation analysis to finally investigate whether the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge transfer was mediated by relationship
quality. Given that knowledge donation, knowledge retention and expertise affirmation
measure a single latent construct (α = .8), the author has considered all three tacit knowledge
transfer sub-variables as a single dependent variable. As stated in the hypothesis H1a, the
author predicted that an indirect relationship throught relationship quality might occur.
A multiple mediation analysis has been performed with team building as independent variable and tacit knowledge transfer as a dependent variable, while the mediators were relationship
quality sub-variables trust, respect and tie strenght. The author made use of the PROCESS
macro for SPSS which uses multiple mediators running in parallel. This allows for a better identification of the strongest mediation effect. The results point out that there was no significant indirect effect of team building on tacit knowledge transfer through respect, trust
nor tie strenght. As a mediation relationship did not occur for any of the analyzed relationship quality sub-variables, the author has decided to investigate if a potential mediation effect
might occur through any of the sixteen relationship quality single items. The results point out that the conceptual model of this paper is replicable for this second study when using together two items that measure trust (α = .86). In addition, the analysis yielded that team building has a significant indirect effect on tacit knowledge retention through the new trust sub-variable (b = 0.09, BCa Ci [0.016, 0.190]). However, the Sobel test indicated that the effect is marginal (p = 0.08).
Second, a multiple mediation analysis has investigated the mediation effect of relationship
quality on the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge retention. The author
has followed a similar procedure as the one described above, this time for the dependent variable tacit knowledge retention. No significant indirect effects of team building on tacit
knowledge retention through respect, trust or tie strength were identified. However, the
0.150]). Subsequently, the Sobel test indicated that the mediation effect was marginal (p = 0.116).
These findings indicate that team building does not indirectly impact tacit knowledge transfer or tacit knowledge retention through relationship quality. However, the conceptual model could be replicated when taking together two trust items as a mediator. Thus, Study 2 confirms hypotheses 1a and 2b, respectively.
Summarizing all findings of this study team building predicts tacit knowledge transfer and
tacit knowledge retention, but does not significantly predict relationship quality. However, I
found a significant marginal direct effect of team building on two relationship quality items measuring trust. Furthermore, this study did not found mediation effects of relationship
quality on the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge transfer, on the one
hand and between team building and tacit knowledge retention, on the other hand. However, there were significant but marginal indirect effects of team building through the same two
relationship quality items measuring trust. It can therefore be concluded that hypotheses 1a
and 2a were partially confirmed as the conceptual model of this paper could be replicated by Study 2.
b = 0.24, p = 0.59 b = 0.4 , p < 0.01
indirect effect, b = 0.1 , 95% CI [0.02, 0.19]
Fig. 5 – Model of team building as a predictor of tacit knowledge retention, mediated by trust
b = 0.24, p = 0.59 b = 0.28 , p < 0.01
direct effect, b = .22, p = 0.04 indirect effect, b = 0.07 , 95% CI [0.008, 0.15]
Fig.6 – Model of team building as a predictor of tacit knowledge retention, mediated by trust
Trust
Team building Tacit knowledge
4.5 Study 2 – Discussion
5. General discussion
Reflection on results and theoretical implications
The conceptual model of this paper was successfully replicated by both studies performed. Except for hypothesis 2 of Study 1 which investigated the direct effect of team building on tacit knowledge retention, all the other advanced hypotheses were at least partially confirmed. The data analysis yielded that team building has indeed the expected positive effects on tacit knowledge management. The results point out that participants at both studies are prone to develop high quality relationships with their colleagues when they are made aware of the potential positive outcomes of team building. Combining the results of both studies, these high quality relations triggered by a team building intervention are likely to ease the processes of transferring and retaining tacit knowledge within organization (hypotheses 1a and 2a confirmed).
This paper builds on the existent body of literature and the conceptual model can be viewed as a linkage between previous research on knowledge management (e.g. van Wijk et al., 2008) and previous research on team building activities (e.g. Rideout & Richardson, 1989). My results have successfully replicated their previous research findings. Furthermore, this paper expands the current literature as I found empirical evidence that team building can be considered a viable alternative to ease the transmission and furthermore, the retention of tacit knowledge embedded in each employee’s human capital.
Team building and Relationship quality
respondents of the two studies. Also, the disagreement on the predictive value of team building on respect and tie strength might stem from the use of different samples between the two studies (e.g. Study 1 – 220 participants vs. Study 2 – 84 participants). The author argues that the inconsistency of the findings might be addressed if the sizes of the samples would be similar.
However, combining the results of both studies, they confirm that team building is an important HR tool that facilitates the creation of strong ties among colleagues, either through respect and tie strength or through trust.
Team building and Tacit knowledge management
On the one hand, the results of both studies revealed that a high quality relationship at the workplace allows organizations to benefit from the unique knowledge and expertise of their employees. Thus, this paper has replicated the findings of previous body of literature. It was shown that organizing meetings where people have the opportunity to work together are an essential means to create bonds among individuals. Particularly, this paper suggests that companies can increase the levels of respect, tie strength and trust through a team building intervention. As team building is an intervention designed to favor the dialogue among colleagues thought its interpersonal dimension, its benefits recommend it as an essential HR tool to be used in the initial phases of the tacit knowledge transfer process. More specifically, where the knowledge creation process begins - the socialization phase - and where subsequently, participants’ tacit knowledge is made explicit - externalization phase (Nonaka & Konno, 1998). Following this line of thought and considering the findings of my studies, one can conclude that the increase of the overall relationship quality during a team building intervention can determine the efficiency of tacit knowledge transfer. Furthermore, fostering a pleasant workplace climate allows organizations to tap into the tacit knowledge of its workforce. Derived from the results of this paper team building has a positive contribution to the process of tacit knowledge retention through the quality of workplace relationships.
Practical Implications
functional backgrounds. Furthermore, if the employees possess valuable industry insights that derive from their work experience in different high rated companies, unlocking their tacit knowledge would eventually lead to sustained competitive advantage. Thus, team building can benefit an organization not only on short-term, but also on the long-run. Both studies yielded that the quality of employee relationship mediates the effects of team building on tacit knowledge management, even though the findings of Study 1 and Study 2 are mixed. As Study 1 yielded a positive mediation effect of respect and tie strength and Study 2 showed a similar effect for trust, I argue that organizations shall strive to create overall high quality relationships across their workforce in order to successfully tap in their tacit knowledge. I argue that this paper adds another brick to the knowledge management literature as it reaffirms the importance of tacit knowledge for organizational success. These findings should raise awareness among HR managers towards the potential of team building as a tool designed to unlock and capture individual’s unique knowledge in the organization. In addition, I argue that the positive effects of team building can be enhanced if the participants are made aware of the potential positive impacts of team building. Even more, such an intervention might have long-term effects if part of a bundle of HR practices designed to ease tacit knowledge management processes. As an example, new entrants that bond strong ties and nurture trust and respect feelings for their coworkers might benefit more the organization if they become part of an informal mentoring program. In other words, more experienced or the older employees which possess valuable tacit knowledge should be encouraged to view their less experienced co-workers as protégées if team building leads to strong ties among them. As team building was shown to increase individual’s identification with the organization and job satisfaction, it can be considered a starting point activity towards gaining competitive advantage.
Limitations and Future Research
towards a team building intervention. Future research can bring more clarity to my findings if considering for the potential moderation effects of age and tenure. Furthermore, the results of the two studies might have been more comparable if focusing on samples with similar size. Future research should be done to address this problem.
Second, the independent variable team building was manipulated by pointing out to the participants the positive outcomes of this intervention as described by the previous body of literature. However, in a real-life setting, these outcomes might not always occur together. This, the results of this study represent a starting point for future research which can go deeper with the analysis and investigate the effects of each of the four team building dimensions on tacit knowledge management. I argue that valuable knowledge can be found if focusing especially on the interpersonal dimension of team building, as relationship quality is shown to mediate the relationship between team building and tacit knowledge processes. Other methodological limitations of this paper might stem from the nature of the studies conducted. The meaningfulness of the results might have biased by the fact that the respondents were not monitored when completing the scenario-based questionnaires. On the one hand, respondents’ tendency to provide answers that are socially desirable as well as their mood state can influence the meaningfulness of the results. On the other hand, the scale format and scale anchors (Tourangeau, Rips & Rasinski, 2000) andthe tendency to maintain consistency across items measuring same constructs might also distort their real responses. Thus, future research might try to replicate the results of this paper in a real-life setting where participants can be monitored.
Conclusion
about the importance of team building as a means of tapping into organizational workforce’s unique knowledge. Empirical evidence suggests that employees might nurture trust and respect feelings for their coworkers when exposed to an intervention that allows them to both socialize and discuss work related issues, such as problem solving and setting future goals. If properly conducted, team building can strengthen the relationship between colleagues and in turn, has the potential to facilitate the acquisition of new skills and perceptions and raise their identification with the group and the organization, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
References
Alavi,M. Leidner,D.E.(2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 107-136
Buller,F.P, Bell,H.C.JR. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity:A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal. 19B6. Vol. 29, No. 2. 305-328
Carlsson,S.A., El Sawy, O.A, Eriksson, I.& Raven,A. (1996). Gaining competitive advantage through shared knowledge creation: in search of a new design theory for strategic information systems. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Information Systems, Lisbon, 1067-1075
Cavusgil, S. T., Calantone, R. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 18, 6-21.
Cohen G.S. & Bailey E.D (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness
Research from the Shop FIoor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 1997, Vol.
23, No. 3.239-290
Collins, H.M. Tacit knowledge and Visul Expertise in Medical Diagnostic Reasoning: Implications for medical education. Medical teacher, 30 ,e184-e188
Cropanzano, R. Mitchell, MS (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, December 2005 874-900
DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. Oxford University Press.
Dunhon, B. (1998). It’s all in our heads. Inform, September, 12(8)
Engel, P.J.H (2008). Tacit knowledge and Visual expertise in Medical Diagnostic Reasoning: Implications for medical education. Medical Teacher, 30, e184-e188
Ebrahimi, M., Saives, A. L., & Holford, W. D. (2008). Qualified ageing workers in the knowledge management process of high-tech businesses. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12, 124-140.
Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 6-18.
