Roles of Culture for Knowledge Sharing in Asian Virtual Teams

2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jinghuai She ◽  
Xi Zhang ◽  
Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos ◽  
Weiguang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Virtual Organization ◽  
Critical Component ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
The Difference

Knowledge sharing is a critical component for successful knowledge management. For multi-culture virtual teams, the difference of culture and the limitation of virtual organization make it especially harder for knowledge-sharing management. This chapter addresses the culture and structure for knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Then, the case of Asian virtual teams is studied to show evidence for the established model. Discussion focuses on managing conflict and maximizing contribution.

Roles of Culture for Knowledge Sharing in Asian Virtual Teams

2016 ◽  
pp. 1212-1219
Author(s):  
Jinghuai She ◽  
Xi Zhang ◽  
Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos ◽  
Weiguang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Virtual Organization ◽  
Critical Component ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
The Difference

Knowledge sharing is a critical component for successful knowledge management. For multi-culture virtual teams, the difference of culture and the limitation of virtual organization make it especially harder for knowledge-sharing management. This chapter addresses the culture and structure for knowledge sharing in virtual teams. Then, the case of Asian virtual teams is studied to show evidence for the established model. Discussion focuses on managing conflict and maximizing contribution.

Using Social Networking Analysis to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing in the British Council

2009 ◽  
pp. 1905-1914
Author(s):  
Bonnie Wai-yi Cheuk
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Social Networking ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Global Leadership ◽  
Shared Knowledge ◽  
Global Databases ◽  
Communication Practice ◽  
British Council ◽  
Km Strategy

Prior to the establishment of the Knowledge Management (KM) strategy, the British Council defined knowledge as objects. Knowledge sharing was about sharing documents and information on the intranet or via global databases. Since December 2002, Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology has been applied to manage knowledge. Knowledge is seen not as a product that can be transferred from one colleague to another but as a communication practice. This means that shared knowledge has to be interpreted and made sense of by its recipients through genuine dialogue. During this phase of KM implementation, the focus shifted to linking up colleagues and providing space for dialogue through building global communities of practice and virtual teams. This article presents an example of how we have used the theory of Social Networking Analysis as a diagnostic tool to promote knowledge sharing among our newly formed 30-people global leadership team. The three steps we have taken to carry out the exercise and its limitations also are discussed.

scholarly journals KNOWLEDGE WITHHOLDING WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESISTANCE TO KNOWLEDGE SHARING LINKING WITH TERRITORIALITY

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupam Kumar Das ◽  
Shimul Chakraborty
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Transfer Of Knowledge ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
The World ◽  
Knowledge Barriers ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Territorial Behaviors ◽  
Knowledge Hiding ◽  
Efficient Transfer

The world of knowledge management consists of different terms that are flying around. Some words are more significant and frequently used than others. Knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer are sometimes measured to have overlapping content and used synonymously. The transfer of knowledge between organizational members has drawn consideration from both academia and business because company competitiveness is linked directly to the dissemination of innovation through an organization. Regardless of the efforts to increase knowledge sharing in organizations, success has been subtle. It is pretty clear that in many instances, employees are not willing to share knowledge even when organizational practices are followed to facilitate transfer. As the scope of innovation within an organization depends on the efficient transfer of knowledge between members, this paper emphases on the concept of knowledge withholding, which is known to interrupt this transfer and distinguish from related concepts (knowledge barriers, knowledge hiding). The aim of this paper is to make a contribution in finding the proper demarcations between these concepts. Firstly, to prove that knowledge sharing and knowledge withholding are separate concepts, Herzberg’s twofactor theory is used which explain the difference between them. Secondly, previous studies on knowledge management are exposed to have unnoticed knowledge withholding in courtesy of knowledge sharing, leading to a lack of information on the earlier. Thirdly, knowledge withholding is defined into two separate manners: the intentional hiding and the unintentional hoarding of knowledge. Finally, characteristics of knowledge withholding are abbreviated based on four territorial behaviors associated to employees in order to advocate areas for further study.

Using Social Networking Analysis to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing in the British Council

2009 ◽  
pp. 833-841
Author(s):  
Bonnie Wai-yi Cheuk
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Social Networking ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Global Leadership ◽  
Shared Knowledge ◽  
Global Databases ◽  
Communication Practice ◽  
British Council ◽  
Km Strategy

Prior to the establishment of the Knowledge Management (KM) strategy, the British Council defined knowledge as objects. Knowledge sharing was about sharing documents and information on the intranet or via global databases. Since December 2002, Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology has been applied to manage knowledge. Knowledge is seen not as a product that can be transferred from one colleague to another but as a communication practice. This means that shared knowledge has to be interpreted and made sense of by its recipients through genuine dialogue. During this phase of KM implementation, the focus shifted to linking up colleagues and providing space for dialogue through building global communities of practice and virtual teams. This article presents an example of how we have used the theory of Social Networking Analysis as a diagnostic tool to promote knowledge sharing among our newly formed 30-people global leadership team. The three steps we have taken to carry out the exercise and its limitations also are discussed.

Varieties of Virtual Organizations and their Knowledge Sharing Systems

Virtual Teams ◽  
2011 ◽  
pp. 186-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Hornett
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Virtual Work ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Project Teams ◽  
Management Styles ◽  
Team Leaders ◽  
Unrealistic Expectations

Provided in this chapter is an analysis of the differences between virtual teams and communities of practice. The chapter links two growing phenomena: virtual organizing and knowledge sharing (knowledge management), based on empirical work from both fields of research. By integrating various types of virtual organizing with corresponding knowledge-sharing systems, the author provides a framework that virtual team leaders, members, and consultants can use to improve management of virtual endeavors. This chapter suggests that calling nearly everything a “Community of Practice” creates unrealistic expectations for spontaneous organizing and knowledge sharing. Indeed, the managers of Virtual Project Teams have organizing challenges that are very different from stewards of Communities of Practice. Practitioners struggling with “one-size-fits-all” prescriptions for virtual work or knowledge management can use this chapter’s three generalized types to develop communications and management styles appropriate for the unique cultures found in each of the various combinations of virtual organizing and knowledge sharing.

Exploration of Social Capital and Knowledge Sharing

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Chieh Liu ◽  
FengChia Li
Keyword(s):  
Social Capital ◽  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Virtual Teams ◽  
Team Performance ◽  
Virtual Team ◽  
Shared Vision ◽  
Network Ties ◽  
Seci Model

Although research on virtual teams is becoming more popular, there is a gap in the understanding of how social capital affects knowledge sharing and creating, and their impacts on virtual team performance. To fill in this gap, this study establishes a framework by incorporating social capital with the SECI model and further examines it with an experiment on 65 student virtual teams. The results show that three factors of social capital, namely network ties, shared vision and trust are positively related to the four SECI modes, namely socialization, internalization, combination and externalization, and the latter three factors are found to be positively related to virtual team performance. The contributions of this study are twofold. The framework examines the relationships between social capital and the SECI model, which brought a broader prospective of studying knowledge management in a virtual team context. Moreover, leaders and managers of virtual teams should be made aware of enhancing the effects of social capital to improve the processes of knowledge sharing and creating, and encouraging internalizationn, combination and externalization to substitute the role of socialization.

scholarly journals Knowledge Sharing: A Key Role in the Knowledge Management Process

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 36-40
Author(s):  
Ajiri Peter Samuel ◽  
Hillary O Odor
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Management Process ◽  
Knowledge Repositories ◽  
Skill Utilization ◽  
Management Processes ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Stock Of Knowledge

Knowledge is and has remained a core competence of all thriving organizations and so, the management of knowledge will remain a key competitive strategy for any organization that wants to remain innovative, sustainable and profitable in this dynamic world of business volatility. The difference between one organization and another, in term of performance and skill utilization has been linked not only to the quality of their knowledge repositories, but also to how knowledge is shared among organizational members. This paper reviewed some extant literature and discovered that the most important of all knowledge management processes lies in knowledge sharing. Rather than keeping our stock of both tacit and explicit knowledge to ourselves, we should endeavor to share knowledge because our stock of knowledge does not deplete when we share it. Rather, knowledge sharing reinforces our knowledge base and makes knowledge to stick and become more permanent. As a matter of fact, the tacit knowledge which resides in the knower goes with the holder when he or she dies. This paper also supports the formulation of a conceptual framework that will establish a link between knowledge management and the organizational learning process.

Audit Firms as Networks of Offices

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott E. Seavey ◽  
Michael J Imhof ◽  
Tiffany J. Westfall
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Knowledge Sharing ◽  
Network Effects ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Network Connectedness ◽  
Partner Knowledge ◽  
Office Level

SUMMARY Prior audit research suggests that most, if not all, audit quality can be explained at the office level. However, the question remains of whether office-level audit quality is contingent on how individual offices relate to the firm as a whole. Motivated by theories of knowledge management, organizational learning, and networks, we posit that individual offices are connected to their audit network through partner knowledge sharing and oversight, which impact office-level audit quality. We interview Big 4 audit partners and learn that knowledge sharing between partners in different offices is common and intended to aid in the provision of audit services. Using network connectedness to proxy for knowledge sharing and oversight between offices of the same firm, we document that more connected offices are associated with fewer client restatements and lower discretionary accruals. We additionally find that network effects are magnified when accounting treatments are more complex and require greater auditor judgement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document