Fábio Augusto Darella de Assis Bastos
FAE Centro Universitário, Brazil
E-mail: fabio.darella@gmail.com
José Vicente Bandeira de Mello Cordeiro
FAE Centro Universitário, Brazil
E-mail: josec@fae.edu
Everton Drohomeretski
FAE Centro Universitário, Brazil
E-mail: everton.drohomeretski@fae.edu
Submission: 12/03/2018
Revision: 26/03/2018
Accept: 10/07/2018
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to identify
the relationships between teamwork design, knowledge management and human
values, categorizing the studies focused in the interplay of these three
variables, with a focus on their appliance to industrial shop floor level
context. By doing so, this paper seeks to identify literature gaps to be
explored in subsequent researches. The research method adopted was a systematic
literature review from databases related to the teamwork design, knowledge
management and human values published in periodicals within the period
comprehended between 2000 to 2015. Thirty-five open categories were initially
identified in the interplay of the three variables, with the clear majority of
them emphasizing the relationship between two of the three variables. Lately,
these original categories converged to nine axial categories or different areas
of research. As a main finding of the study, it was possible to identify one
main gap in the literature, suggesting the development of new researches
focused on investigating how teams’ design and levels of autonomy impact the
performance of team members’ knowledge management activities in different
groups on which different values prevail.
Keywords: Human values, Consciousness
Levels; Teamwork Design; Autonomy; Knowledge Management; Shop Floor; Systematic
Literature Review.
1. INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is defined as the capacity
to take action in uncertain situations. Knowledge management is a recent
concept discussed more fully from the 1990s and on, defined as a process of
promoting the flow of knowledge between individuals and groups within the
organization (ALAVI; LEIDNER, 2001).
Work teams are one of the most
popular type of teams. Cohen and Bailey (1997) make a distinction between
“regular” work teams, which are directed by a supervisor who make the most of
the decisions and a self-managing or autonomous work team, which involves
employees in making decisions.
According to Schuring (1996),
Sacomano Neto; Escrivão Filho (2000), Marx (2010) and many others, team
members’ autonomy is one of the main drivers of successful knowledge management
activities on the shop floor level. In contrast, some qualitative studies, such
as one conducted by Wzorek and Cordeiro (2014), propose that autonomy alone
cannot be associated with more effective knowledge management activities on the
shop floor.
According to Cordeiro et al. (2012),
Cowan and Todorovic (2000), Bell (2007) and others, the role played by a
greater level of team members’ autonomy in the causation of a better tem
performance is closely dependent on the values of the team members.
This paper seeks to identify the
relationships between Knowledge Management, Teamwork Design and Human Values
(or Levels of Consciousness), with a focus on the interplay of these three
variables at the industrial shop floor level. To accomplish this purpose, a
systematic literature review was conducted, aiming to identify how the current
literature relates each one of these three variables to the others. More
specifically, the article seeks to identify: i) how human values affect teams
and their performance regarding knowledge management; ii) how knowledge
management and sharing affect teams performance and iii) how team’s design
affect knowledge management and sharing.
Section two presents the Theoretical
Framework that helped developed the protocol that guided the research on
periodicals’ databases. It is divided into three subsections, each one focusing
on one of the research variables mentioned: i) Knowledge management on the shop
floor; ii) Teamworking Design and iii) Human Values and Consciousness Levels.
Section three presents the Research Design, which involves the collection,
categorization and the analysis of the data used in this research.
This section also provides an
explanation on how the authors defined and performed the research protocol. All
the categorized subjects and related authors are found in the section four, in
which research’s main findings are also presented. Finally, section five
presents final conclusions and proposals for future researches.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section presents a theoretical
review on the three main variables approached by the present study.
2.1.
Knowledge
Management on the Shop Floor
Knowledge
Management (KM) is a process of promoting the flow of knowledge between
individuals and groups within the organization, consisting of four essential
steps: acquisition, storage, distribution, and knowledge utilization (ALAVI;
LEIDNER, 2001).
When
individuals provide any part of their knowledge to others, they are involved in
knowledge sharing (BARTOL; SRIVASTAVA, 2002). Knowledge sharing represents a
social activity that occurs within a system where knowledge represents a reSource
that has a value (DAVENPORT; PRUSAK, 1998; ROLFSEN, 2013).
Despite
being under debate as an area of research and publishing within the Social
Sciences since the early 1990s, the integration of Knowledge Management with
Production Organization concepts is still quite recent (CORDEIRO et al., 2012).
Muniz (2011) defines these concepts as a process that seeks the integration of
tacit and explicit knowledge between human beings, during their jobs, looking
for improvements in order to promote enhancements of the organizational
performance on the shop floor of industrial companies. Knowledge management strategies,
practices and applications are considered to have positive effects on the
improvement of organizational performance (TSENG, 2014; YANG, 2010; GOMES;
BARBOSA, 2014).
There is a
difference between tacit and explicit knowledge and together they represent the
“epistemological” dimension to organizational knowledge creation. This
dimension involves a continual exchange between the two types of knowledge,
which guides the creation of new ideas and concepts. These interactions define
a further dimension to organizational knowledge creation, which is associated
with the extent of social interaction between individuals that share and
develop knowledge. This is referred to as knowledge creation’s “ontological”
dimension (NONAKA, 1994).
The key
factor to this process is the involvement of a wide range of employees, which
creates a greater number of innovations and also more diverse innovations than
if merely a few especialized employees were involved (MUNIZ et, al. 2011; TIDD;
BESSANT, 2005; FAY et, al. 2015; HAGHIGHI, et, al. 2015).
According
to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1997), knowledge creation focus on building both, tacit
and explicit knowledge and more also, on the interchange between these two
aspects of knowledge through internalization and externalization. The Figure 1
exemplifies the knowledge spiral process.
Figure 1: Knowledge Spiral
Source: Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1997, adapted).
Motivation
is recognized as a main factor in successful knowledge flow in organizations
(ARGOTE et al., 2003; YAHYAGIL, 2015). Understanding the factors that motivate
workers to engage in knowledge sharing has started to receive considerable
attention in recent years (BORDIA et al., 2006).
Sharing of
tacit knowledge is facilitated by an engaging environment (NAKANO et al.,
2013). An engaging environment is supported by shared language and knowledge,
and some values like openness and trust.
Individual
and shared values are important factors influencing workers propension to share
and create new knowledge. The results-oriented, loosely controlled and
job-oriented cultures will improve the effectiveness of the KM process and will
also increase employees’ satisfaction and willingness to stay with the
organization (CHANG; LIN; 2015).
According
to Swift et al. (2010), organizations should develop hiring processes that
increase the probability of choosing workers with a learning goal orientation,
especially in positions that require high levels of knowledge sharing. Fitting
an individual’s goal orientation with the knowledge sharing needed in a
particular position may increase organizational performance.
Teamworking
is pointed out as one of the most effective organizational designs regarding
the creation of new knowledge, for it favors knowlege sharing between team
members.
2.2.
Team working
Cohen and
Bailey (1999) describe a team as a collection of individuals who are
independent in their tasks, share responsibility for outcomes and manage their
relationship across organizational boundaries.
Work teams
are the most popular type of teamworking. Cohen and Bailey (1999) also point
out that work teams normally are managed by a supervisor who make the most of
the decisions, deciding how things are
done and who does each of these things. In contrast, they also refer to a
self-managing or autonomous work team, which involves employees in making
decisions.
Regarding
the shop floor level, Pruijt (2003) defines the concept of teamworking as a
product of two distinct developments:
·
A neo-Tayloristic form of work, on which there is a fix
supervisor who works as team leader, and only the team leader is able to
participate in decision-making; standardization is pursued; there are bonuses
based on assessments by supervisors, focusing on how deeply workers cooperate
in the system;
·
An anti-Tayloristic form of work, on which there is no
supervisor and leader position rotates; all team members are able to
participate in decision-making; Standardization is not crazy pursued; there is
an inclination to alleviate technical discipline; remuneration is based on
proven skill level and there are no group bonuses.
Danford
(1998) also mentions two models of teamworking: "Japanese Style" vs.
“Autonomous teams", the former being similar to Prujit’s neo-tayloristic
group and the latter resembling Prujit’s anti-tayloristic teams. Similarly,
Marx (2010) presents two different types of work teams at the shop floor:
enriched groups and semiautonomous groups; the enriched groups being equivalent
to Prujit’s neo-Tayloristic Teams and the semiautonomous groups approximating
Prujit’s anti-Tayloristic teams.
According
to Salerno (1991), Semiautonomous Groups’ performance are superior to enriched
groups, especially in contexts on which production flexibility is needed due to
a higher demand for product and method innovations. Accordingly, Marx (2010)
defends that enriched groups have a restricted level of autonomy and
assignments, focusing in operational improvements in the working environment.
According to the author, these limitations have the potential to reduce the
likelihood of enhancing professional skills and more strategic improvements.
As Dankbaar
(1997, p. 577) puts, "...the Japanese notion of 'teamwork' refers to a
sense of responsibility for the whole enterprise ('Team Toyota'), and to mutual
aid and off-line improvement activities. It does not refer to working in
teams”. Based on this sentence, it can be noticed that Dankbaar’s concept of
teamworking is equivalent to the formerly presented anti-Taylorist teams and
semiautonomous groups. Conversely, Womack et al. (1992) introduced the term
"team" to designate Japanese work groups, which were equivalent to
the formely presented neo-Tayoristic teams or enriched groups.
One
influencing factor for the teams’ formation is that people who are part of them
have thoughts, personalities and different educational backgrounds, what can
hinder the synergy between them. When the synergy happens, the team performs
well. Otherwise, there is misunderstanding and problems can be amplified. That
suggests that team-members’ values play an important role in team effectiveness
(SACOMANO NETO; ESCRIVÃO FILHO, 2000; DELARUE et, al. 2008).
Wzorek and
Cordeiro (2015) conducted a qualitative research with three auto parts
companies in South Brazil, on which they explored in a deeper way the
differences between enriched/neo Taylorist and semi-autonomous/anti Tayloristic
teams.
Based on
Marx (2010), they proposed a continuum between the two extremes of
enriched/neo-Tayloristic groups and semiautonomous/anti-Tayloristic Groups.
They also provided a table that enables one to assess and classify a work team
into six different categories, varying from the most simple and stardardizing
focused to the most complex and flexibility focused: i) pre enriched groups;
ii) enriched groups I; iii) enriched
groups II; iv) semiautonomous groups I;
v) semiautonomous groups II and vi) semiautonomous groups III. In this
same research, it was found that increased autonomy does not guarantee
necessarily better results to the company in terms of knowledge creation and
management in the shop floor, countering some already mentioned works in the
social sciences field.
As
mentioned by Chang and Lin (2015) and Nakano et al. (2013), workers’ values
have major influence on KM effectiveness, and people with different values will
react differently to a higher or lower level of autonomy in a work team.
2.3.
Human
Values and Consciousness Levels
Maslow is
one of the first researchers to synthesize a wide variety of studies related to
human motivation. Before Maslow, researchers generally focused separately some
factors as biology, achievement, or power, to explain what moves, directs, and
maintains human behavior.
Huitt
(2003) holds that Maslow proposed a hierarchy of human needs based on two
groups: deficiency needs and growth needs. Within the deficiency needs, each
lower need must be met before moving to the next higher level. Once each of
these needs has been satisfied, if at some future time a deficiency is
detected, the individual will act to remove the deficiency.
Maslow’s
initial concept included only one growth need: self-actualization. According to
him, self-actualized people are defined by: being problem-focused, life
appreciatiave, interested on personal growth and focus on having great
experiences. Later on, he stated that the more self-actualized and
self-transcendent one person gets, he or she will be more able to know what to
do in different kind of situations (MASLOW et al., 1998).
Values
could be defined as “an individual view on what is most important in life that
in turn guides behavior”. They are a useful option for intention changes, which
relates to individual awareness (HINES, 2011a. p. 188).
Inglehart’s
(1997) theory of intergenerational value change suggests that one’s level of
‘‘existential security’’ is the key factor to self-actualization and hapiness.
It’s not necessarily how much money one has, but how secure one feels.
Considering knowledge as having a number of levels of comprehension, these
levels (human data) grow from simple to complex, turning out the different
attributes of knowledge, providing some manners to measure and to understand
individual’s values and consciousness (BENNET et al., 2010).
The reasons
for acting in particular ways change, as do the behaviors. Spiral Dynamics (SD)
is based on Clare Graves’ studies on human consciousness and describes
biopsychosocial systems in form of an expanding spiral. The term
biopsychosocial reflects a focus on a multidisciplinary approach to understand
human nature (COWAN; TODOROVIC, 2000).
Therefore,
“Bio” stands for the neurology and chemical energy of life; “psycho” is related
to the variables of personality and life experiences and “social” focuses on
the collective energy in group dynamics and culture, as the interpersonal
domain influences human behavior.
Finally,
“system” stands for the interdependence and action/reaction of these three upon
one another in a coherent whole. All consciousness levels defined by Cowan and
Todorovic are detailed in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: What people in each worldview seek out in
life
Color |
Color |
Human Characteristics |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
Beige Purple Red Blue Orange Green Yellow Turquoise |
Survival; biogenic needs satisfaction;
reproduction; satisfy instinctive urges; genetic memory. Power/action; asserting self to dominate
others and nature; control; sensory pleasure; avoid shame. Stability/order; obedience to earn reward
later; meaning; purpose; certainty; Truth; the reason to live and die. Opportunity/success; competing to achieve;
influence; autonomy; mastery of nature; understanding self. Harmony/love; joining for mutual growth;
awareness; belonging; spirituality and consciousness. Independence/self-worth; fitting a
sustainable living system; knowing; the big questions; the long view. Global community without exploitation;
understanding of life energies; survival of life on a fragile Earth. |
Source: Cowan and
Todorovic (2000, adapted).
Cowan and
Todorovic (2000) point out that, organizations could adjust its management
system to fit the person; the school could match teacher, student, and method.
The authors warn that if this is not done, people will lose mind power and
interest. According to the authors, getting the right person into the right job
with the right materials at the right time within the right systems and
structures is what SD is about.
The World
Values Survey (WVS) and Ray’s Cultural Creative are other values-based systems
that are similar to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Spiral Dynamics (HINES,
2013). According to Hines (2013), values can be synthesized into four main
types: traditional, modern, post-modern and integral.
Traditional
values are focused on following the rules, respect for authority, religious
faith. They are closely related to the SD’s blue values presented on Exhibit 1. Modern values focus on achievement,
emphasizing consumption and are equivalent to SD’s orange values. Post-Modern
values emphasize the search for meaning in one’s life and has self-expression
as a priority, being equivalent to SD’s green values. Integral values emphasize
the need to adjust values to fit each particular situation, enabling one to
pursue personal growth, relating to SD’s yellow and turquoise values.
Traditional
values were dominant for centuries. Modern values arose and grew in numbers
with the advent of industrial revolution. Postmodern values emerged with the
information and service society just some decades ago, and Integral values, the
newest on the scene, emerged perhaps a decade or two ago (HINES, 2011b).
Considering
all the above mentioned, the challenge is to communicate, develop, motivate,
and manage those people in ways that fit who they are now and prepare systems
for who people will become next. That includes work teams’ design and their
potential to motivate and engaje people with different values to create new
knowledge, improving organizational perforamnce (COWAN; TODOROVIC, 2000).
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
The main purpose of this paper is to characterize relationships between
teams’ design (with a focus on autonomy) and individual values with the
effectiveness of knowledge management at the shop floor by means of a
literature review. Specifically, the analysis also aims to identify:
·
How human awareness (values, culture)
affects teams’ performance in terms of knowledge management;
·
How teamwork design, with a focus on
teams’ autonomy levels, impacts teams performance in terms of knowledge
management;
·
How knowledge management (and sharing)
affects teams’ performance.
In terms of its objectives, this is a descriptive research, for it is
focused on identify and present the already developed research on the
above-mentioned fields. However, it also presents some features of an
explanatory research for it aims to provide a categorization of these studies
and how they interrelate with each other. The reason a systematic literature
review was chosen is due to its strategic and rigorous manner of conducting the
literature review, which allows one to identify gaps in the theory, which can
be explored later on (COOK et al., 1997).
To develop the paper, three main steps to categorize studies were
defined: open coding, axial coding and selective coding (data analysis)
processes. Basically, open coding is the process of reading papers and
summarizing their characteristics in terms of method and objectives, creating
very narrow and specifically defined categories and allocating papers to them.
The axial coding correlates and identifies relationships among the open codes,
consolidating them into more broad and useful categories. Finally, the
selective coding process rescues the research question in order to develop core
categories and compare them with the research’s initial aims, figuring out
literature gaps (DROHOMERETSKI et al, 2015; CHO; LI, 2014).
The research was divided into eight main phases, according to FIG. 2
Figure 2: Framework of the Research
methodology
SOURCE:
The authors (2018).
To initiate the papers search, the authors used these available databases: Scopus (Elsevier);
OneFile (GALE); MEDLINE/PubMed (NLM); Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of
Science); ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection; Social
Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science); Technology Research Database;
SciVerse ScienceDirect (Elsevier); Materials Research Database; Wiley Online
Library; ASSIA: Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts; Engineering
Research Database; Materials Business File; Advanced Technologies Database with
Aerospace; Emerald Journals (Emerald Group Publishing); Mechanical &
Transportation Engineering Abstracts; Computer and Information Systems
Abstracts; ERIC (U.S. Dept. of Education); Civil Engineering Abstracts; ANTE:
Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering.
The main limitation found by the authors (regarding journals’
availability) was related to crossed referenced searches, that were done all
the times it was decided to include in the research a paper that was cited in
another one. Most of times the papers found by this method were out of reach
due to database limitations. Due to this fact, some important references might
have been left out of this paper. The paper search focused on the period
comprehended from 2000 to 2015.
The strategy to optimize the search was to divide it into three search
windows, and at each one apply the defined variables and their equivalent
keywords to find as many results as possible simultaneously. A string’s model
was structured to help on the research. As an example, the “Teamworking”
variable gave birth to the following string: “Teamworking” OR “Semi-Autonomous
Groups” OR “Autonomous Groups” OR “Team work”.
The three variables focused by the research (Knowledge Management,
Teamworking and Human Values) were deployed into the following keywords (using
the string code cited before): Knowledge Management; Knowledge Sharing;
Knowledge Management on the shop floor; High-involvement Innovation;
Teamworking; Team work; Semi-autonomous Groups; autonomous groups; Levels of
Consciousness; Levels of Human Development; Worldviews; Values.
At the beginning of the search process, all possible filters (period,
language, and article) were used to refine journals findings, focusing exactly
in the research questions. For example, in the search for “autonomous teams”,
the category “Robotics” was disabled, because this issue wasn’t related to the
research questions presented in the study. This sort of action diminished the
numbers of papers found from (approximately) 312.000 to 10.000 papers,
considering all those three main subjects: Knowledge Management, Teamworking
and Human Values on the shop floor.
Using these criteria, the authors evaluated titles and abstracts in order
to make sure they were related to research objectives, which limited the search
further to 131 publications. This process was performed in two subsequent
steps: i) discarding papers which focus was different from Business companies
with an industrial context and those which conclusions couldn’t be at least
extrapolated to the shop floor context; ii) Discarding those papers that didn’t
explore the relationship between the variable under study and at least one of
the other two variables. Exhibit 2 shows
the amount of papers per journal and the Exhibit 3 the amount of papers per year of
publication.
Exhibit 2: Papers per journal.
Source:
The authors (2018).
Exhibit 3: Publications per year
Source:
The authors (2018).
The focus on industrial shop floor was assured in a broad fashion. Only
papers presenting results that could not be extrapolated to the shop floor environment
were discarded. For example, a paper focusing students values and their
behavior within teams was kept, for its aim was to explore the correlations
between teams’ structure and teams’ effectiveness (and so could be applied to a
shop floor environment).
On the other hand, a paper focusing on the relationship of nurses’ teams
and their patients was discarded, for a very specific relationship from a
healthcare context was under exploration, with no possibility of extrapolation
for the shop floor environment.
During the reading process, the following information regarding each
paper were collected: title, keywords, authors, journal, abstract, objective,
method, findings, publication’s year. The 131 papers were analyzed by its type,
and were carefully categorized using the open coding method, followed by axial
coding and finally the selective coding.
The codings development and the categorization process were based on the
data extracted as defined in the research protocol. This process started by
mapping the paper’s main objective, extracted from the abstract and/or the
introduction, and analyzing the content section and the findings section.
This process generated a large number of categories that were gathered
according to the similarity of themes. For example, the study by Devaro (2008)
was recorded as “The effects of Self-Managed and Closely Managed Teams on Labor
Productivity and Product Quality”. This paper was open coded as “How
teamworking affects organizational performance” and then categorized as
“Performance” during the axial coding process.
4. FINDINGS
With all papers collected
and divided into folders, the open coding was developed. The frameworks were
settled by categories (Exhibit 4 to 18
shows the open and the axial codes for each variable). The axial categorization
was performed aggregating the categories of the open coding into more broad
categories related to the aim of the study.
As an instance, for the
variable “Knowledge Management”, five different open codes (all of them
focusing performance related issues within the Knowledge Management context)
were aggregated into just one axial category named “Performance”. As shown in Exhibit
4, “Performance”, “Human Values”,
“Organizational Design”, and “Teamworking” are the main categories on which
papers focusing primarily on “Knowledge Management” were divided into. In a
similar fashion, as it can be seen in Exhibit 9, papers focusing mainly on “Teamworking”
were divided into five categories: “Performance”, “Knowledge Management”,
“Organizational Design”, “Autonomy” and “Human Values”. Finally, papers
focusing primarily on “Human Values” were divided into only three categories,
as shown in Exhibit 15: “Organization
Design”, “Knowledge Management” and “Performance”.
In all three categorizations (as designed in Exhibit
s 4, 9 and 15), the focus was to identify papers which investigate how human
values impact on teamworking design and management in order to maximize
knowledge creation in the shop floor. Therefore, this was the selective coding
defined for all three coding processes conducted as shown in Exhibit 19.
Exhibit 4: Open and Axial Coding - Knowledge
Management.
Source:
The authors (2018)
After the conclusion of the axial coding for each
one of the three variables, each group of axial categories (related to one of
the variables) was cross-checked with the other two groups in order to identify
possible redundancies. In this process, three sets of redundant categories were
identified, for in each of them the same interplay of variables were under
investigation.
For example, one of the three axial categories for
the variable “Teamworking” was “Human Values”, which included all papers
focused on the impact of human values in teamworking. Besides, one of the five
axial categories for the variable “Human Values” was “Teamworking”, including
all papers aiming to investigate how teamworking relates to human values. So,
these two categories were fused into just one, presented as one of the nine
areas of research in Exhibit 20.
Exhibit 5 to
8 presents frameworks containing all those references which were categorized in
open and axial coding, in this case, knowledge management and its subdivisions.
Exhibit 5: Knowledge Management – Performance
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers |
How human values affects knowledge
management and organizational performance; How human values affects knowledge
management and teams performance; How knowledge management affects
organizational design and performance; How knowledge management affects
organizational performance; How teamworking affects knowledge
management and organizational performance; |
C.
Yang, K.C. Yang, S.Y. Tseng (2009); Keith and Alan (2003); Tsung-Hsien Kuo
(2013); Abraham, Roy
and Roni (2013); Yanfei, Pingfeng and Jingjing (2010); Sandy and Jane (2008). Wei, Baiyin and Gary
(2010), Robert and Kataryna (2015); Arturo, Antonio and Rafael (2015);
Holsapplea and Joshib (2000); Vorakulpipat and Rezgui (2006); Bijaya and Uday (2010);
Satyendra and Andrew (2013); Jenny (2005); Brian, Theodore and John (2009);
Martine and Morten (2007); Zhining and Nianxing (2012); Wang, Lan and Xie
(2008); Ghiyoung and Arun (2008); Josune, Nekane and Olga (2009); Jorge,
Edgard and Geilson (2010); Nonaka (2006); Meng, Jeou and Yu-Ha (2009); |
3 3 5 11 1 |
Source: The Authors (2018)
Exhibit 6: Knowledge Management – Human Values
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers |
How awareness affects knowledge management; How human values affects knowledge management; How knowledge management affects human values; How knowledge management affects teamworking and
human values; How organizational design affects human values; |
Janet and Alton (2013);
John, Evangelia, Louise and Russell (2015). Sheng, Raymond and
Zhong (2011); Ren, Ming and Gwo (2011); Dennis, Peter, Scott and Peter
(2002); Marylene (2009); Carol, Robert, Davison and Louie (2015); Gian, Karen
and Mark (2012); Hsiu-Fen and Gwo (2006); Vincent and Qiping (2010);
KyeongNam, Siew Fan, Younghoon and Myeong (2015); Kristiina, Ulf and Tomi
(2012); Dianne, Susan and Tim (2015); Minna, Nelli, Ari and Niklas (2015);
Rodney, Sandra and Jian (2012); Dianne and Sandy (2005); Kate and Brian
(2000); Mark, Juri, Volkmar and Volker (2013); Wolfgang, Sonja and Lukas
(2010); Fariza, James and
Peter (2011); Susan, Alan, Diana and Priscilla (2013); Susan, Alan and Diana
(2006); Lucy, Hyoun, Margaret and Jin (2013); Zhou and Xiaowen (2015); George (2013); Mika and Graham
(2015); |
2 17 5 1 1 |
Source: The Authors (2016).
Exhibit 7: Knowledge Management – Organizational Design
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers |
How organizational design affects knowledge
management; How organizational design and human values affects
knowledge management; How organizational design affects knowledge
management and organizational performance; How organizational design and knowledge management
affects teams performance; |
Cristina and Tung
(2015); Visvalingam and Manjit (2011); Luu (2012); Margit and Bruno (2000);
Luu (2013); Eoin and Marian (2011); Jen-Te (2007); Seigyoung and Bulent
(2013); Ghulam, Muhammad, Usman, Olivier, Afsheen and Rizwan (2014); Jelle,
Jeroen, Arjan and Wendy (2014); Niels, Hans and Peter (2011); Anna, Bambang,
Glen and Vaughan (2013); Su-Wan, Young and Joon (2011); Bard, Robert and
Anders (2012); Leonardo, Pablo and Alejandro (2011); Fatemeh and Leila
(2014); Kathryn and Abhishek (2002); Antonio and Juan (2015); Vincenzo and
Sara (2015); Zhenzhong, Yufang, Jie Wu, Weiwei and Liyun (2014); Angela
(2013); Aliona, Fahame, Tillmann and Armin (2015); Davi, Jorge and Edgard
(2013); Eun Yun (2013); Yong, Donna and Hee (2012); Zhen, Yuqiang and Luning (2012); |
25 1 1 1 |
Source: The Authors (2018).
Exhibit 8: Knowledge Management – Teamworking
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers related |
How knowledge
management affects teamworking; How
organizational design affects teams performance and knowledge management; How knowledge
management affects teams performance. |
Jukka,
Ari, Juha (2004); Mary, Melinda and
Sherry (2006); Julie,
Marleen and Maura (2010); Kumaresan and Swarooprani (2015); John, Tekeisha
and Jeff (2012); Yuwen and James (2011); Melissa (2012); |
1 1 5 |
Source: The Authors (2016).
Exhibit 9
presents a diagram of the open coding and axial coding which focused on
“Teamworking” subject. This code was divided into five categories, as shown
below.
Exhibit 9: Open and Axial Coding – Teamworking.
Source: The authors (2018)
Exhibit 10 to
14 presents categorized references (in open coding and axial coding) about
teamworking keyword, and its classes.
Exhibit 10: Teamworking – Performance
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers |
How human values affects organizational
performance;
How leadership affects teams performance and
organizational performance;
How knowledge management affects organizational
performance; How organizational design affects teams
performance |
Simon Lewin, Scott Reeves (2011);
Cristina B. Gibson and Dana M. McDaniel (2010); Seigyoung, Stavroula, Bulent and Aypar (2014);
Robert R., Christopher H. and Jeremy B. (2011); Taly and Miriam (2005);
Kevin, Greg and Aaron (2011); Gerben and Onne Janssen (2003); Gilad, Ruth,
Richard, John E. and Steve W. (2006); Gilad, Chen and Ruth (2006);
Constantine, Ingrid M and Andrea B (2011); Aled and Delyth (2011); Len, Henk,
Alan and Julia (2011); Aída, Piet Van, Miriam, Ramon and Francisco (2014); Jonas, Monica (2012); Janka (2007); Jed Devaro (2008); Rachael, Mark,
Patrick (2010); Rosemary Batt (2004); Takao Kato, Motohiro Morishima (2002); Celso Alves (2010); Celia, Jaime (2005), Sun Young, Jin Nam (2012); Martin J, Oliver (2000); Peter H. Gray (2000); Piet Van, Wim Gijselaers, Mien, Geert,
Paul (2011); Shenjiang and Xiaoyun (2010); Ben and Marco (2005); Daniel, Marie, Caroline and Sebastien (2011);
Camelo, Fernandez and Martinez (2006); Svin, Martin, Pieter, Cathy,
Massimiliano, Walter and Kris (2012) |
2 11 2 4 1 4 1 1 4 |
Source: The Authors (2018)
Exhibit 11: Teamworking – Knowledge Management
Category |
References |
Numbers
of Papers Related |
How teamworking affects knowledge sharing; How organizational design affects knowledge
sharing; |
Jonathon (2004); Enno, Sridhar and Aleda (2007); |
2 1 |
Source: The Authors (20168)
Exhibit 12: Teamworking – Organizational Design
Category |
References |
Numbers
of Papers Related |
How organizational design affects teams design; |
David and Stuart (2002); |
1 |
Source: The Authors (2018)
Exhibit 13: Teamworking - Autonomy
Category |
References |
Numbers
of Papers Related |
How human values affects teams autonomy; |
Se-Hyung (2012); |
1 |
Source: The Authors (2018)
Exhibit 14: Teamworking – Human Values
Category |
References |
Numbers
of Papers Related |
How organizational design affects human values |
Alexandra, Nale, Simone and Angela (2010); |
1 |
Source: The Authors (2018)
Exhibit 15
presents a graph of the open and axial coding, delimited in the subject “Human
Values. This coding was labeled into three categories, as shown below.
Exhibit 15: Open and Axial Coding – Human Values.
Source: The authors (2018).
Exhibit 16 to
18 presents categorized references (in open coding and axial coding) about
human value keyword, and its classes.
Exhibit 16: Human Values - Organizational Design
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers |
How
organizational design affects human values; |
Marylene and Edward
(2005); Manu, Vinod and Mandeep (2014); Amal and Mohammad (2011); Setyabudi
and Siti (2014); Robert, Robert and Carole (2008); |
5 |
Source: The Authors (2018).
Exhibit 17: Human Values – Knowledge Management
Category |
References |
Nº
of Papers |
How human
values affects knowledge sharing; |
Kurt, Birgit, Julia, Stephan and Todd (2003); |
1 |
Source: The Authors (2018).
Exhibit 18: Human Values –Performance
Category |
References |
N°
of Papers |
How human
values affects teams performance; How human
values affects organizational performance; How autonomy
affects organizational performance; |
Ci-Rongli,
Chen-Julin, Yun-Hsiangtien and Chien-Mingchen (2015); Barry Strauch (2010);
Bradley and Debra (2001); Taewon (2013), Karen, Paul, Menno Vos (2009). Sharon
Glazer, Sophie Carole Daniel, Kenneth M. Short (2004); Stan, Guy, Hans,
Wendy and Geert (2014); |
5 1 1 |
Source: The Authors (2018).
Exhibit 19 presents the three
axial categories put together to form a whole regarding the interrelations of
the three variables. This process was performed to assure that the main
objective of this research, i.e., to identify the influence of the values of
team members on their teams’ performance in terms of knowledge sharing and
creation was accomplished (or not) by one or more of the selected papers.
Exhibit 19: Axial Categorization – Interrelations between the three
variables.
Source: The authors (2016).
Considering the crossed aspects of the Axial Coding
performed, it was possible to define nine main areas of research in the
interplay of the three variables. These areas are shown in Exhibit 20.
Exhibit 20: Areas of research
Areas of Research |
Main Subjects Investigated |
1.
Human Values vs. Knowledge Management |
Investigate how Human Values
affects Knowledge Management sharing and creation. |
2.
Human Values vs. Teamworking |
Focus on the role played by human
values and culture on teams’ effectiveness. |
3.
Human Values vs. Organizational Design |
Investigate the interplay of the
two variables, focusing on both how organizational design effectiveness is
affected by human values and culture and how organizational design can change
human values. |
4.
Knowledge Management vs. Organizational Design |
Focus on types of Organizational
Designs that enable a better Knowledge sharing and creation |
5.
Knowledge Management vs. Performance |
Focus on both how knowledge management
initiatives enhances organizational performance and how to measure Knowledge
Management performance. |
6.
Knowledge Management vs. Teamworking |
Explore how Knowledge Management is
affected by teamworking. |
7.
Teamworking vs. autonomy |
Investigate the role played by
autonomy in teamworking effectiveness. |
8.
Teamworking vs organizational design |
Explore the interplay of
teamworking and organizational design in a macro-level, i.e., how teamworking
affects organizational design effectiveness and how organizational design in
a macro level limits teamworking performance. |
9.
Teamworking vs. Performance |
Investigate how to improve
teamworking performance. |
Source: The authors (2016).
In this regard, many studies emphasized the impact
of workers’ consciousness levels on Knowledge creation. Authors such as Matzler
et al. (2008) conducted an empirical study on which it was identified that
individual’s consciousness levels impacts knowledge sharing performance. In a
similar way, Glazer et al. (2004) made
cross-cultural comparisons, collecting data from workers from different
countries such as Hungary, Italy, UK and USA. The authors found that values
influence people’s commitment with the organizations and human values are
influenced by national culture.
Accordingly, on a study developed by Taewon
Moon (2013), it was found that cultural values affects human
values, which in consequence, affects teamworking. Pais (2010), in a study of
self-managed teams, described an increase of commitment and productivity when
people experienced autonomy. On the other hand, Devaro (2008) found that there
is no statistically significant difference between the predicted gains from
autonomous against non-autonomous teams. The opposition between these two
findings indicates that there is something in-between autonomy and team
effectiveness, i.e., there might be a modulator of these two variables,
inhibiting a direct causal relationship between teams’ autonomy and teams’
performance.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation influences
workers’ intention to share knowledge, but also, results and job oriented
cultures have positive impacts on employee’s intention in the knowledge
management process. Some studies showed the importance of a trust environment
in order for workers to want to share their knowledge and their own experiences
with their teams.
A strong positive relationship was found between
trust and knowledge sharing for all types of teams (local, hybrid and
distributed), but the relationship was stronger when task interdependence was
low, supporting the position that trust is more critical than autonomy as a
driver of knowledge sharing and creation (STAPLES; WEBSTER, 2008).
Worker’s lack of consciousness may negatively affect
the intention to share knowledge, consequently guiding to a weak decision-making
and communication in organizations. Also, it limits the organization in some
aspects like the ability to refuse external risks, implement innovation and
managing risks (ISRAILIDIS et al., 2015). This result implies that more complex
levels of consciousness and values are needed to cope with the volatility,
uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity increasing, typical of the new industrial
environment.
Finally, it wasn’t possible to identify a study
aimed in the analysis of the impact of team member values on different teams’
designs effectiveness in terms of knowledge sharing and creation, what
represents an important literature gap to be explored in subsequent researches.
5. CONCLUSION
It was possible to identify in the
literature many works emphasizing how human values affect teams and their
performance regarding knowledge management. Furthermore, the impacts knowledge
sharing and management have on organizational performance is the focus of many
of the identified papers.
Finally, it was also possible to
find many papers focused on the interplay of organizational and teams design,
knowledge management and sharing and human values. Nevertheless, a gap was
identified on the subject of how human values impact on teamworking design and
management in order to maximize knowledge management on the shop floor.
Despite the fact that nine different
categories of studies were identified, all of them were focused on the
interplay of only two of the three variables that were the focus of this
research. This finding alone represents the accomplishment of one of the
research’s main objectives, i. e., identifying a gap in the literature.
A systematic literature review
offers a well guided manner to design a protocol which purpose has to find an
important gap within the existing literature. The systematic review implemented
by the authors provides a clear content classification of three important
research areas: teamworking, knowledge management and human values. As a result
of this process, it was possible to identify nine different areas of research,
that have already been explored by the authors in the field, and one additional
research area, defined by the gap presented in the former paragraph.
Among the main limitations of this
study, data collection period (2000 to 2015) is one of the main; however, these
time limits were established in order to identify the most recent literature
and practices on the shop floor, what diminishes its impacts.
To identify the quantitative and
qualitative evolution of the measures and practices, it would be necessary to
carry out a longitudinal study of the literature, which deviates from the focus
of this particular work. Another limitation is with regard to the databases
used and the ability to access them, what have been mentioned before in the
Methods section.
Furthermore, the study provided many
insights into the terms most used for its three main variables. For example, it
was realized that for most authors in the field, the term “self-managed teams”
refers to all types of teamwork without a formal supervision defined by the
management level.
For future work, it is suggested
that the categories defined in this study can help organize other knowledge
management, teamworking and workers’ values studies. Furthermore and most of all,
it is suggested that the interplay of team members’ values and teamwork design
and their impact on knowledge management performance on the shop floor
constitutes a new field of study in the area.
REFERENCES
ALAVI, M.; LEIDNER,
D. E. (2001)Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, v. 25, n. 1, p. 107-136.
ARGOTE, L.; MCEVILY,
B.; REAGANS, R. (2003) Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative
framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, v. 49, n. 4, p. 571-582.
FELÍCIO, J. A.; COUTO, E.; CAIADO, J. (2014) Human capital, social capital and
organizational performance. Management Decision, v. 52, n. 2, p.
350-364.
BARTOL, K. M.;
SRIVASTAVA, A. (2002) Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational
reward systems. Journal of leadership & organizational studies,
v. 9, n. 1, p. 64-76.
BECK, D. E.; COWAN,
C. (2014) Spiral dynamics: Mastering
values, leadership and change. Somerset: Wiley.
BELL, S. T. (2007) Deep-Level
Composition Variables as Predictors of Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 92, n.
3, p. 595–615.
BENNET, A.; BENNET,
D.; LEE, S. L. (2010) Exploring the military contribution to KBD through
leadership and values. Journal of knowledge management, v. 14, n. 2,
p. 314-330.
BORDIA, P.; IRMER,
B. E.; ABUSAH, D. (2006) Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and
via databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European journal of work and
organizational psychology,
v. 15, n. 3, p. 262-280.
CHANG, C. L.-H.; LIN, T.-C.
(2015) The role of organizational culture in the knowledge management process. Journal
of Knowledge Management, v. 19, n. 3, p. 433-455.
CHO, J. Y.; LEE, E-H. (2014) Reducing
confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities
and differences. The qualitative report,
v. 19, n. 64, p. 1-20.
COHEN, S. G.;
BAILEY, D. E. (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from
the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management, v. 23, n. 3, p. 239-290.
COOK, D. J.; MULROW, C. D.; HAYNES,
R. B. (1997) Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical
decisions. Annals of internal medicine,
v. 126, p. 376-380.
COWAN, C. C.;
TODOROVIC, N. (2000) Spiral dynamics: The layers of human values in strategy. Strategy & leadership, v. 28, n. 1, p. 4-12.
CORDEIRO, J. V. B. M.; PELEGRINO, A. N.; MULLER, A. V. (2012)
Proposta e aplicação de um modelo de análise para a gestão do conhecimento em
programas de produção enxuta. In:
Encontro Nacional de Engenharia da Produção, 32., Bento Gonçalves. Anais... Bento Gonçalves: ABEPRO.
DANFORD, A. (1998) Teamworking
and labor regulation in the auto components industry. Work, employment & society, v. 12, n. 3, p. 409-431.
DANKBAAR, B. (1997) Lean
production: Denial, confirmation or extension of sociotechnical systems design? Human relations, v. 50, n. 5, p.
567-583.
DAVENPORT, T. H.;
PRUSAK, L. (1998) Working knowledge:
How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Delarue, A.; Van Hootegem, G.; Procter, S.; Burridge, M.
(2008) Teamworking and organizational performance: a review of survey‐based research. International Journal of Management Reviews, v. 10, n. 2, p. 127-148.
DEVARO, J. (2008)
The effects of self‐managed and closely managed teams on
labor productivity and product quality: An empirical analysis of a cross‐section of establishments. Industrial
relations: A journal of economy and
society, v. 47, n. 4, p. 659-697.
Drohomeretski, E.; da Costa, S. E. G.; de Lima, E. P.; de Oliveira
Neves, T. R. (2015) The
application of sustainable practices and performance measures in the automotive
industry: a systematicliterature review. Engineering
management journal, v. 27, n. 1, p. 32-44.
Fay, D.; Shipton, H.; West, M. A.; Patterson, M. (2015) Teamwork and
organizational innovation: The moderating role of the HRM context. Creativity and Innovation Management,
v. 24, n. 2, p. 261-277.
GLAZER, S.; DANIEL,
S. C.; SHORT, K. M. (2004) A study of the relationship between organizational
commitment and human values in four countries. Human relations, v. 57, n. 3, p. 323-345.
MARUYAMA, U. G. R.; BRAGA, M. A. B. (2014) Human reSources strategic practices,
innovation performance & knowledge management: proposal for brazilian
organizations. Independent Journal of
Management & Production, v. 5, n. 3.
HAGHIGHI, M. A.;
BAGHERI, R. KALAT, P. S. (2015) The relationship of knowledge management and
organizational performance in science and technology parks of Tehran. Independent Journal of Management &
Production, v. 6, n. 2.
HINES, A. (2011a)
Consumer shift: How changing
values are reshaping the consumer landscape. Verlag: No limit publishing group.
HINES, A. (2011b) Hitting
the snooze button on the future: Review of the biggest wakeup call in history. Foresight,
v. 13, n. 2.
HINES, A. (2013) Shifting
values: Hope and concern for “waking up”. On the horizon, v.
21, n. 3, p. 187-196.
HUITT, W. (2003) A
systems model of human behavior. Educational
psychology interactive, Valdosta.
HUITT, W. (2001) Motivation
to learn: An overview. Educational psychology interactive, Valdosta, v. 12.
INGLEHART, R. (1997)
Modernization and postmodernization:
Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Israilidis, J.; Siachou, E.; Cooke, L.; Lock, R. (2015) Individual variables with an
impact on knowledge sharing: the critical role of employees’ ignorance. Journal of knowledge management, v. 19, n. 6, p. 1.109-1.123.
KOHLBERG, L. (1981) The philosophy of moral development:
Moral stages and the idea of justice. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1 v.
MARX, R. (1994) Organização do trabalho na
indústria automobilística sueca. São
Paulo em perspectiva, v. 8,
n. 1, p. 91-97.
MARX, R. (2010) Trabalho em grupo e autonomia como instrumentos de competição. 2. ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
MASLOW, A. H.;
STEPHENS, D. C.; HEIL, G. (1998) Maslow on Management. New York : John
Wiley.
Matzler, K.; Renzl, B.; Müller, J.; Herting, S.; Mooradian, T. (2008) Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal
of economic psychology, v. 29, n. 3, p. 301-313.
MOON, T. (2013) The
effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams. Journal of applied social psychology, v. 43, n. 12, p. 2.414-2.425.
MUNIZ, J.; SOUSA, H.; FARIA, A. (2011) Conhecimento, trabalho
e produção: Estudo do ambiente operário em uma montadora automotiva. In:
Simpósio de Administração da Produção, Logística e Operações Internacionais,
14., 2011, São Paulo. Anais... São Paulo:
Fundação Getúlio Vargas.
NAKANO, D.; MUNIZ JR, J.; DIAS BATISTA JR, E. (2013)
Engaging environments:
tacit knowledge sharing on the shop floor. Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 17, n. 2, p. 290-306.
NONAKA, I.; TAKEUCHI, H. (1997) Criação de
conhecimento na empresa: Como as empresas japonesas geram a dinâmica da
inovação. Rio de Janeiro:
Campus.
PAIS, C. L. A. (2010)
Self-managed teams in the auto components industry: Construction of a
theoretical model. Team performance management: An international journal, v. 16, n. 7/8, p. 359-387.
POLLERT, A. (1996) Team
work on the assembly line: Contradiction and the dynamics of union resilience. The new workplace and trade unionism.
London: Routledge, v. 266.
PRUIJT, H. (2003) Teams
between neo-Taylorism and anti-Taylorism. Economic and industrial democracy, v. 24, n. 1, p. 77-101.
ROLFSEN, M. (2013) We
put teamwork back on the agenda again and again. The role of support systems in
autonomous teamwork. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, v. 19, n. 5/6, p. 292-304.
SACOMANO NETO, M.; ESCRIVÃO FILHO, E. (2000)
Estrutura organizacional e equipes de trabalho: Estudo da mudança
organizacional em quatro grandes empresas industriais. Gestão & produção,
v. 7, n. 2, p. 136-145.
SALERNO, M. S. (1991) Flexibilidade, organização e trabalho operatório: Elementos para análise da produção na
indústria. 1991. 232f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) – Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
SCHANK, R. C. (1995)
Tell me a story: Narrative and
intelligence. Northwestern University Press.
SCHURING, R. W. (1996)
Operational autonomy explains the value of group work in both lean and
reflective production. International
journal of operations & production management, v. 16, n. 2, p. 171-182.
STAPLES, D. S.;
WEBSTER, J. (2008) Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and
virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information
systems journal, v. 18, n.
6, p. 617-640.
TIDD, J.; BESSANT,
J. (1998) Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and
organizational change. 4. ed. Somerset: New Jersey.
TSENG, S.-M. (2014) The
impact of knowledge management capabilities and supplier relationship
management on corporate performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, v. 154, p. 39-47.
VANDEWALLE, D. (1997)
Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and psychological measurement, v. 57, n. 6, p. 995-1.015.
WOMACK, J. P.; JONES, D. T.; ROOS, D.
(1992) A máquina que mudou o mundo. 4. reed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
Wzorek, L.; Cordeiro, J. V. B. M. (2014) Organização
e gestão do conhecimento no chão de fábrica no setor de autopeças. Caderno
PAIC, Curitiba, v. 15, n. 1, p. 9-32.
YAHYAGIL, M. Y. (2015) Values,
feelings, job satisfaction and well-being: the Turkish case. Management Decision, v. 53, n. 10, p.
2268-2286.
YANG, J. (2010) The knowledge
management strategy and its effect on firm performance: A contingency analysis.
International Journal of
Production Economics, v. 125, n. 2, p. 215-223.