CAL Final Literature - Essay Example

? SALEH ALOTHMAN CAL FINAL LITERATURE Word Count: 2,521 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 RESEARCH APPROACH 2 3 ACTION RESEARCH 3 3 Training 4 3.2 Employee Development 5 4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – USE OF BLOGS 6 4.1 Knowledge Sharing 6 5 SUMMARY 8 1 INTRODUCTION In earlier literature, the discussion was on the value of knowledge creation as it is the principal factor that provides the organization with competitive advantage. Due to the fact that knowledge creation provides the organization with competitive advantages, this is a constantly researched. However, the environment in which the research is conducted can vary from an organization, region and other environment of research. According to Mitchell and Boyle (2009, p. 67) the area of the knowledge creation process has not received the required attention compared to the apply creation of knowledge in organizations. The knowledge that is created from inside the organization is unique to the organization and cannot be easily transported or used by other organizations. This uniqueness provides required leverege to the organization that is required to stay ahead of competition (Tsoukas and Mylonopoulos, 2004, p.1). Knowledge needs to be ongoing and therefore, a learning environment needs to be created. Nafukho, Graham and Muyia (2009, p. 33) stated that learning is essential for addressing organizational / work-based problems and learning should be used a catalyst in “designing, developing, and implementing learning interventions” that is targeted at organizational performance. Knowledge within organization learning is also identified as the route of improving actions throughout acquiring new knowledge and understanding (Oliver, 2009, p. 547). Organizations that considered quality knowledge creation as an important aspect to improve, their internal and external quality are always ahead. Work-based problems are studied rigorously by organizations that consider quality highly. Oliver (2009, p. 548) states that organization learning can be found in the majority of the organizations, but it is the learning organization that makes the difference. Oliver (2009, p. 548) stated “Organizational learning can be found in any organization, but the learning organization will embody organizational learning in all its actions and exemplifies the ideal application of organizational learning”. They state further that the application and use of organizational learning mechanisms embody organizational learning. The utilization of organizational learning mechanisms helps the organization to collect, store, analyze, publish and make use of this information to the benefit of the organization. 2 RESEARCH APPROACH Organizations use research as one of the means of creating knowledge. Research is also used to identify problems and find solutions. Lee and Greenley (2010, p. 5) emphasize research has to be conducted in a business environment but researchers need to make sure that their research has the required rigor and relevance. The discussion further leads to viewpoints from various authors and one particular viewpoint of induction approach particularly was significant to me. This was from Evert Gummesson, who argues that for achieving good results and to ensure rigor a researcher should follow an inductive method. This is because within a deductive method the theory that will be used may be outdated or based in different environments. Therefore, it cannot be adopted to attain the desired results from the research. The argument is that, through the use of inductive approach; a researcher is not influenced by previously established theories and starts to begin with collecting information. Within my organization study, I opt to carry out a deductive approach which is contradicting with Evert Gummesson arguments (Lee and Greenley, 2010, p.5). I support this approach as I am not basing my discussion on a particular research or textbook but by analyzing different literatures on the topic of employee motivation and organizational behavior. Different point of view and findings from researchers would provide a strong point of view for beginning the research. On the second phase of research, the approach could be inductive where my research can begin with collecting data and comparing it with my initial findings to see the changes. Further, viewpoint of another author research should ensure relevance and applicability in the organization. Clegg (2002, p. 428) emphasizes on the importance of understanding the target, for whom research is conducted and its beneficiary. Within business schools, research can be carried out by students or by professionals. In simple words, relevance of the research should be clearly indicated before even beginning the research. According to Pratt (2011, p. 481) “positivist ‘standard of proof’ are held up to see if the findings are true or right”. Emphasis is on the importance of using positivist approach, which is considered to be important and largely used by researchers. 3 ACTION RESEARCH The term action research was invented in Kurt Lewin over 50 years back (Gronhaug and Olson, 1999, p. 6). Action research is widely studied and practiced in the context of social and human sciences by students, researchers in Universities and management and practitioners in organizations. Although action research is popular, it faces criticism as being unscientific. Gronhaug and Olson (1999, p. 6) argue that action research is the only known way of creating good and usable knowledge compared to other types of researches. I support the discussion than action research is one of the best possible ways to produce the required knowledge in my organization. According to (Zuber-Skerritt and Perry, 2002, p. 171) the choice of action research in the academic and business environment is because action research is more closely related to their daily work and organization work. Organizations find it useful as it helps, significantly in solving the work-based problems by applying real-life solutions. Students make use of action research to investigate organization problems as part of their Thesis, especially within Masters and PhD programs. They refer to this as “social science action research” (Zuber-Skerritt and Perry, 2002, p. 171). The argument is that through action research a learning organization and a student researcher can both benefit from the body of knowledge. Based on their interpretation of action research within student research they indicate three key aspects. These include working in teams towards planning, acting, observing, and deliberately and systematically mirroring on their job and making this into a report which in this case a Thesis. The importance of reflecting in work has been discussed through the module. According to Rowley (2003, p.131) one of the problems faced by students in carrying out work in their work environment is in reflecting on their own learning, which is appropriate to organizational change and development process. The discussion here is closely in line with what I had proposed in the beginning of this module. The problem of employee motivation needs to be investigated through scientific methods and observations. Based on the follow-up learning, the topic of carrying out research from inside as part of the organization (Evered and Louis, 1981, p. 385) and the use of action research (Zuber-Skerritt and Perry, 2002, p.171) were discussed. Based on the above discussions by Zuber-Skerritt and Perry (2002, p. 171) the choice of action research has been understood as the best choice to understand the low motivation of the employee and provide recommendations. The difference between action research and action learning has also been provided by Zuber-Skerritt and Perry (2002, p. 173). Within an organization action research focuses on a workgroup environment where processes of planning, action, observation and critical reflection are involved. On the other hand action learning stresses on individual learning. Action learning is part of action research but not vice versa. 3.1 Training Training is discussed as one of the main aspects in knowledge creation. Within action research management training in senior school has been discussed as an important factor by Cardno and Piggot-Irvine (1996, p. 19). They discuss that within management training the following characteristics should be included. 1. Management training should be focused at solving workplace-based problems and how to solve them and with particular emphasis on students who work on real problems or issues. 2. The teaching environment is continuously changing and based on this the training should also be able to adapt to these changes. 3. Developing teamwork, interpersonal skills, people management skills, self-development are some of the other aspects that have been recommended to be practiced within management training. One of the main factors that are discussed here is on how the participant's thinking process needs to be influenced. And this is by critically examining the ethics and theories through examining similar theories. Failure in examining the existing theory based on the problem and participant practice is what is indicated to be lacking and therefore, a “critical reflection on practice” (Cardno and Piggot-Irvine, 1996, p. 19) is advised. This is in line with the discussion of Martineau and Hannum (2004) where the discussion is about collaborative learning and is indicated that “collaborative inquiry process in which participants work and reflect on real problems with learning partners, producing a tangible outcome while at the same time learning from the experience”. I had discussed this in Week 4 where the importance of knowledge within each department needs to be collaborated and integrated to create a knowledge pool which is essential for organization growth. 3.2 Employee Development Nafukho, Graham and Muyia (2009, p. 34) indicate the problems within small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is the unawareness of learning deficiencies and the negative impact on employee performance leading to poor performance in the organization. According to Senge (1990, cited in Johnson and Dunerley, 2000) teams are important to organization learning. Senge’s (1990) theory on an organization learning paradigm has provided an opportunity for other researchers in exploring the theory on organizational learning (Nafukho, Graham and Muyia, 2009, p. 36). Learning is the power of growth, and learning has to be both in the form of individual; team based and organization wide perspective. Heijden (2004, p. 145) indicates that organization learning should provide an opportunity to create new knowledge in conjunction with knowledge that is beneficial to the organization. Chang and Lee (2007, p. 155) state further that extent to which the learning will impact an organization is calculated on the change that it brings out for the better. Employees are the ones to produce knowledge. Every single experience that they share on the daily basis into the knowledge pool produces knowledge and through participation from everyone, new knowledge is developed. Therefore, Chenhall and Chermack (2010, p. 589) stress the importance of focusing on human resource development. Organizations are thereby expected to create an environment to share knowledge. When this is a new concept, organizations have to find different ways of making employees share their view and knowledge. These could be through daily department meetings, company meetings, training, presentations, etc. But to make it an organization wide concept with daily interactions; the use of information technology is essential. According to Chenhall and Chermack (2010, p. 589) there should be “organization development, management development, team building, and transformative learning”. 4 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – USE OF BLOGS According to Hussi (2004, p. 3), competitive advantage has been recognized by many organizations based on the knowledge they posses, share and create. Therefore, knowledge is being treated as a “major resource for asset” (Martin-Niemi and Greatbanks, 2010, p. 40) by many organizations. This has been indicated to be a dilemma, especially when the employees in the organizations are a mix of gender, religion, different ethnic backgrounds and nationality, and located in distinct geographical areas wherein personally interaction is limited. The question now comes to knowledge being managed. Knowledge management (KM) has been in practice for over 25 years and comprises the organization ability in bringing together employees, processes, structure, and technology toward the common goal of adding value to the organization (Dalkir, 2005). Technology is especially used where distance and in person interaction is a problem. Blogs evolved recently and have stated to play a major role in the field of knowledge sharing (Martin-Niemi and Greatbanks, 2010, p. 41). It helps to create a social networking environment and have been even successful in replacing many other types of communications such as discussion boards, newsgroups, etc. (Fielding et al., 2008). According to Dotsika and Patrick (2006, p. 406) blogs helps the users to interact within a group or community, and it evolves based on the discussions and the length of the discussions, which is also known as a conversation thread. 4.1 Knowledge Sharing KM itself requires information technology for storing knowledge and blogs add-on by helping to share knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995; cited in Martin-Niemi and Greatbanks, 2010) inferred “knowledge conversion takes place when personal knowledge is validated, connected to and synthesized with others’ knowledge”. We have discussed earlier that knowledge creation is essential for organizational success, especially in handling work-based problems. The uniqueness of the knowledge that organizations possess helps in overcoming many organizational related problems. Balmisse et al. (2007, p. 118) add on to this by stating that KM is the tool that facilitates sharing and transfer of information, “social interaction and interface customization”. Martin-Niemi and Greatbanks (2010) provide an interesting discussion on “ba” (translation for place) that helps in developing relationships, sharing and enhancing experiences and created a shared environment. The idea originates from Nonaka et al., (2000) who also provides the knowledge creation cycle as shown here in figure 1. Figure 1: Knowledge Creation Cycle – The SECI model (Source: Martin-Niemi and Greatbanks; 2010) The figure indicates how knowledge is created through sharing from both individual and group environment and the sharing is not limited to experts but through participation of everyone. In addition to knowledge creation the emphasis is on tacit and explicit knowledge and how to share these. Explicit is easier to share compared to tacit knowledge, which is based on individuals personal talent. The model is called SECI (socialization, externalization; combination and internalization). The reasons for providing and discussing this model, are to stress on the usage of blogs in my organization. We took the interest of using blogs with the aim of making employees share their knowledge. With the few months of usage, we could see good developments in employees sharing their experiences. However, as discussed here participation from all employees is required to create knowledge. Right now the usage is limited, and our organization is taking steps to being incentive programs aimed at encouraging knowledge sharing. Focus is emphasized on putting up problems to which others can contribute with the best solutions. Thus, one of the main interests in implementing blogs is to share knowledge and also find the best solution so solving work-based problems by bringing together ideas from everyone across department, division and branches. New ideas are born frequently, and we are already finding ways to sharing and creating knowledge through the use of blogs. 5 SUMMARY Learning is considered as a pillar for organizational improvements and enhancements.  Knowledge creation and acquisition improved the organization's ability of taking right actions required.  Lacking in knowledge creation and acquisition will lead to organizational failure and gaining the competitive advantage. Knowledge creation is highly diversified topic. This study is limited in analysing ways through which knowledge can be created and utilized to finding and solving work-based problems.   Therefore, the focus has been on action research with a focus on training and development of an employee and use of blogs for knowledge sharing. Organizations have to understand that learning and knowledge creation is a continuous process that provides an opportunity for the organization to adapt better by understanding and analyzing work-based problems.  The impact of learning can be understood from the change that is having created in the organization in the positive manner. REFERENCES Balmisse, G., Meingan, D. and Passerini, K. (2007), “Technology trends in knowledge management tools”, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 118-31. Cardno, Carol and Piggot-Irvine, Eileen (1996), “Incorporating action research in school senior management training”, International Journal of Educational Management, 10 (5), pp. 19-24; Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=838645&show=html; Accessed: 11.06.2011 Chang, Su-Chao and Lee, Ming-Shing (2007), “A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees’ job satisfaction”, The Learning Organization, 14 (2), pp. 155-185; Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm; Accessed: 11.06.2011 Clegg, Stewart R. (2002), “Lives in the Balance: A Comment on Hinings and Greenwood's Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory?", Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (2002), pp. 428-441 Chenhall, Everon C. and Chermack, Thomas J. (2010), “Models, definitions, and outcome variables of action learning: A synthesis with implications for HRD”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 34 (7), pp. 588-608; Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm; Accessed 11.06.2011 Dalkir, K. (2005), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann, Amsterdam/Boston, MA. Dotsika, F. and Patrick, K. (2006), “Towards the new generation of web knowledge”, VINE, 36 (4), pp. 406-22. Evered, Roger and Louis, Meryl Reis (1981, p. 385), “Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: "Inquiry from the Inside" And "Inquiry from the Outside”, Academy of Management Review, 6 (3), pp. 385-395 Fielding, N., Lee, R.M. and Blank, G. (2008), The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods, Sage, Los Angeles, CA/London. Gronhaug, Kjell and Olson, Olov (1999), “Action research and knowledge creation: merits and challenges”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 2 (1), pp. 6 – 14 Heijden, K. (2004), “Can internally generated futures accelerate organizational learning?”, Futures, 36 (2), pp. 145-59. Hussi, T. (2004), “Reconfiguring knowledge management – combining intellectual capital, intangible assets and knowledge creation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 8 (2), pp. 3-52. Johnson, Phil and Duberley, Joanne (2000), Understanding Management Research: An understanding to Epistemology, Sage Publications Limited, London Lee, Nick and Greenley, Gordon (2010), “The theory-practice divide: thoughts from the Editors and Senior Advisory Board of EJM”, Editorial, European Journal of Marketing, 44 (1/2), pp. 5-20 Martineau, J. and Hannum, K. (2004), Evaluating the Impact of Leadership Development: A Professional Guide, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Martin-Niemi, Fa and Greatbanks, Richard (2010), “The ba of blogs: Enabling conditions for knowledge conversion in blog communities”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40 (1), pp. 7-23; Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm; Accessed: 14.06.2011 Nafukho, Fredrick M.; Graham, Carroll M. and Muyia, Machuma H. (2009), “Determining the relationship among organizational learning dimensions of a small-size business enterprise”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 33 (1), pp. 32-51; Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm; Accessed: 12.06.2011 Oliver, Judy (2009), “Continuous improvement: role of organisational learning mechanisms”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 25 (6), pp. 546-563; Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm; Accessed: 14.06.2011 Pratt, Michael G. (2011), “Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals”, Organizational Research Methods, 11 (3), pp. 481-509 Mitchell, Rebecca and Boyle, Brendan (2009), “Knowledge creation measurement methods”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (1), pp. 67-82; Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1840410&; Accessed: 11.06.2011 Rowley, Jennifer (2003), “Action research: an approach to student work based learning”, Education + Training, 45 (3) pp. 131 – 138 Tsoukas, H. and Mylonopoulos, N. (2004), “Introduction: Knowledge construction and creation in organizations”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-8. Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun and Perry, Chad (2002), “Action research within organisations and university thesis writing”, The Learning Organization, 9 (4), pp. 171-179, Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=882639&show=html&; Accessed: 12.6.2011 Read More