Work-Group Knowledge Acquisition in Knowledge Intensive Public-Sector Organizations: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that the performance of public-sector organizations is tied to the efficient use of knowledge, this exploratory study examined factors that influence knowledge acquisition by work groups in knowledge-intensive public-sector organizations. Based upon a review of the absorptive capacity and knowledge management literature, we defined knowledge acquisition as the change in the collective knowledge of groups over time. The amount of individual prior knowledge, and common knowledge among group members, managerial practices, and perceptions of knowledge applicability were identified as independent variables. Data were collected from 179 individuals representing 28 work groups in 7 public-sector organizations. Using multi-level regression, we found that homogeneity of knowledge at the group level and perceptions of knowledge applicability influenced acquisition, but that, contrary to much of the literature in this domain, prior-related knowledge did not have such an influence. Middle-management practices moderated the impact of knowledge applicability, suggesting that middle managers provide contextual information that permits group members to better understand the relevance of external knowledge. Implications for practice include the importance of training staff in teams to build homogeneity of knowledge, and ensuring that middle managers understand the organization’s strategy and their roles in the knowledge-utilization process. Implications for theory include the notion that prior knowledge can either encourage or obstruct knowledge acquisition. Dado que o desempenho de organizações do setor público é relacionado ao uso eficiente do conhecimento, este estudo exploratório examina fatores que influenciam a aquisição de conhecimento por grupos de trabalho em organizações do setor público de conhecimento intensivo. Com base em uma revisão da literatura sobre capacidade de absorção e conhecimento gerencial, nós definimos a aquisição de conhecimento como a mudança no conhecimento coletivo de grupos no decorrer do tempo. A quantidade de conhecimento individual prévio e o conhecimento comum entre os membros do grupo, das práticas gerenciais e percepções da aplicabilidade de conhecimento são identificadas como variáveis independentes. Os dados foram coletados de 179 indivíduos representando 28 grupos de trabalho em sete organizações do setor público. Utilizando regressão multinível, nós descobrimos que, no nível de grupo, a homogeneidade do conhecimento e as percepções da aplicabilidade deste conhecimento influenciam a aquisição, mas que, ao contrario de vasta literatura neste campo, prévio conhecimento não tem tanta influência. Práticas gerenciais de nível tático moderaram o impacto da aplicabilidade do conhecimento, sugerindo que gerentes médios fornecem informações contextuais que permitem aos membros do grupo um melhor entendimento da relevância de conhecimento externo. Implicações práticas incluem a importância do treinamento dos servidores em times para construir a homogeneidade do conhecimento e assegurar que os gerentes médios compreendam a estratégia organizacional e seus papéis no uso do conhecimento. Implicações teóricas incluem a noção de que conhecimento prévio pode tanto encorajar quanto obstruir a aquisição de conhecimento. Translated by Ricardo Gomes, University of Brasília
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".