|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
Organizations rely on many kinds of work groups to develop products, improve services, and manage operations. For these groups to be effective, structures and processes must be in place to foster members working together (Cohen and Bailey 1997, McGrath 1984). Numerous studies have demonstrated benefits for work groups that engage in information exchange and task-related communication within the group (Allen 1977, Tushman 1979). Though successful work groups take advantage of the perspectives, talents, and ideas of different members, a well-designed group also creates a common understanding of the organizational context through sharing knowledge externally about the work (Hackman 1987). Previous research has shown that knowledge sharing outside of the group is positively related to performance (Ancona and Caldwell 1992a, Brown and Utterback 1985). It is increasingly clear that knowledge transfer, both within and outside of groups, plays a fundamental role in the effectiveness of organizations (Argote et al. 2000, 2003).
The knowledge necessary for high performance in work groups can be tacit (Polanyi 1966), codified (Zander and Kogut 1995), or embodied in routines (Nelson and Winter 1982). Knowledge sharing is defined here as the provision or receipt of task information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure (Hansen 1999). Along with verbal communication about the task and the exchange of tangible artifacts, knowledge sharing includes the implicit coordination of expertise (Faraj and Sproull 2000) and information about who knows what in the group (Rulke and Galaskiewicz 2000). Knowledge sharing in work groups might entail providing task information to a client or receiving feedback on a project from senior managers.
The sources of knowledge for any given work group can range from customers to organizational experts to members themselves (von Hippel 1988). Moreover, because task-related knowledge from a customer and an organizational expert are likely to be nonoverlapping, group members can elicit new ideas and insights from different sources of knowledge (Ancona and Caldwell 1992b, Hansen 1999). Social network theories support the notion that unique knowledge sources can be more valuable than knowledge sources shared by everyone (Burt 1992, Granovetter 1973). However, theory and research have yet to address which types of diversity influence the value of knowledge sharing in work groups.
Structural Diversity vs. Demographic Diversity
Scholars examining diversity in work groups have primarily focused on the consequences of demographic diversity (e.g., member differences in sex, age, or tenure) for processes such as communication, conflict, or social integration (Jehn et al. 1999, Pelled et al. 1999, O'Reilly et al. 1989). The consistently negative effects of demographic diversity on group processes are likely the result of heightened member emphasis on social categories rather than project-relevant information (for a review, see Williams and O'Reilly 1998). Demographic diversity should not increase the value of intragroup knowledge sharing or external knowledge sharing unless it exposes members to unique sources of knowledge related to the work.
Relatively little attention has been given to member differences in organizational affiliations, roles, or positions. With the rise in labor costs, global expansion, and corporate mergers, work groups are often used as a means for connecting members who are dispersed across different geographic locations, who represent different functions, who report to different managers, or who work in different business units (DeSanctis and Monge 1999, Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999, Maznevski and Chudoba 2000). This variation in features of the group structure is introduced here as structural diversity because of its potential to expose members to different sources of task information, know-how, and feedback. Four types of structural diversity in work groups are discussed in more detail below: geographic locations (e.g., Van den Bulte and Moenaert 1998), functional assignments (e.g., Bunderson and Sutcliffe 2002), reporting managers (e.g., Burns 1989), and business units (e.g., Hansen 2002). Furthermore, external knowledge sharing should be more valuable than intragroup knowledge sharing for structurally diverse groups because members are more likely to encounter unique knowledge that has not been shared previously within the group.
PROPOSITION. External knowledge sharing will be more strongly associated with performance when work groups are more structurally diverse.
Geographic Locations
One form of structural diversity originates from differences in the geographic locations of group members who can communicate via computer technologies to accomplish their work across vast physical distances (Cramton 2001, Jarvenpaa and Leidner 1999, Maznevski and Chudoba 2000). The "eyes and ears" of members are in different environments, therefore they have access to a greater variety of task-related information, which can open up new opportunities for knowledge sharing (Monge et al. 1985). Work group members in different locations also likely have different social networks outside of the group because members run into different people in the hallways, see different people at meetings, and communicate socially with different people (Conrath 1973). However, different geographic locations will only enhance the value of knowledge sharing for work groups if members access unique information about the task through these outside social networks.
HYPOTHESIS 1. External knowledge sharing will be more strongly associated with performance when group members are dispersed across more geographic locations.
Functional Assignments
Another form of structural diversity is based on member differences in functional assignments, which research suggests can facilitate the integration of expertise, contribute to the successful implementation of projects, and accelerate cycle time for new product development (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi 1995, Griffin and Hauser 1992, Pinto et al. 1993). Advantages are realized through this form of structural diversity because the mix of functional assignments in the group draws on differences in member training and experience (Bunderson and Sutcliffe 2002). The breadth of perspective in the work group can assist the reception and transmission of knowledge from outside of the group (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Groups with members representing different functions can access diverse social networks they have established in their respective domains, such as marketing or manufacturing (Ancona and Caldwell 1992b). For different functional assignments to increase the value of knowledge sharing for work groups though, members must gain unique insight about the project through these external ties.
HYPOTHESIS 2. External knowledge sharing will be more strongly associated with performance when group members represent more functional assignments.
Reporting Managers
A third form of structural diversity is derived from hierarchical reporting structures in organizations. For example, in matrix organizations, employees report through two or more command systems, one normally related to a function such as engineering and another often associated with a product, like cell phones (Davis and Lawrence 1977). There are several potential benefits to this form of organization, including increased communication channels and flexibility of resource use (Ford and Randolph 1992). The implication of having different reporting managers in groups is that members have access to diverse social networks through their managers. Through these networks, members can exchange information that comes down from upper management or through other parts of the organization (Burt 1992). However, having different reporting managers will only improve the value of knowledge sharing for work groups if members share unique task knowledge through these hierarchical relationships.
HYPOTHESIS 3. External knowledge sharing will be more strongly associated with performance when group members report to more managers.
Business Units
Finally, structurally diverse work groups can embody lateral structures in the organization, such as members working in different business units (Galbraith 1994). The capability to transfer best practices within the firm is linked to competitive advantage (Szulanski 1996), and formal integrative mechanisms (e.g., liaisons, task forces, permanent committees) have been shown to facilitate knowledge flow across the corporation (Gupta and Govindarajan 2000). In multiunit companies, this form of structural diversity in groups can result in faster project completion time when knowledge is shared effectively across units (Hansen 2002)....
|
