Asia pacific journal of information systems

The Korea Society of Management Information Systems (한국경영정보학회)
권호 표지

Exploring Influence of Network Structure, Organizational Learning Culture, and Knowledge Management Participation on Individual Creativity and Performance: Comparison of SI Proposal Team and R&D Team

네트워크 구조와 조직학습문화, 지식경영참여가 개인창의성 및 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증분석: SI제안팀과 R&D팀의 비교연구

  • Published : 2010.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, firms are operating a number of teams to accomplish organizational performance. Especially, ad hoc teams like proposal preparation team are quite different from permanent teams like R&D team in the sense of how the team forms network structure and deals with organizational learning culture and knowledge management participation efforts. Moreover, depending on the team characteristics, individual creativity will differ from each other, which will lead to organizational performance eventually. Previous studies in the field of creativity are lacking in this issue. So main objectives of this study are organized as follows. First, the issue of how to improve individual creativity and organizational performance will be analyzed empirically. This issue will be performed depending on team characteristics such as ad hoc team and permanent team. Antecedents adopted for this research objective are cultural and knowledge factors such as organizational learning culture, and knowledge management participation. Second, the network structure such as degree centrality, and structural hole is used to analyze its influence on individual creativity and organizational performance. SI (System Integration) companies are facing severely tough requirements from clients to submit very creative proposals. Also, R&D teams are widely accepted as relatively creative teams because their responsibilities are focused on suggesting innovative techniques to make their companies remain competitive in the market. SI teams are usually ad hoc, while R&D teams are permanent on an average. By taking advantage of these characteristics of the two kinds of teams, we will prove the validity of the proposed research questions. To obtain the survey data, we accessed 7 SI teams (74 members), and 6 R&D teams (63 members), collecting 137 valid questionnaires. PLS technique was applied to analyze the survey data. Results are as follows. First, in case of SI teams, organizational learning culture affects individual creativity significantly. Meanwhile, knowledge management participation has a significant influence on Individual creativity for the permanent teams. Second, degree centrality Influences individual creativity significantly in case of SI teams. This is comparable with the fact that structural hole has a significant impact on individual creativity for the R&D teams. Practical implications can be summarized as follows: First, network structure of ad hoc team should be designed differently from one of permanent team. Ad hoc team is supposed to show a high creativity in a rather short period, implying that network density among team members should be improved, and those members with high degree centrality should be encouraged to show their Individual creativity and take a leading role by allowing them to get heavily engaged in knowledge sharing and diffusion. In contrast, permanent team should be designed to take advantage of structural hole instead of focusing on network density. Since structural hole can be utilized very effectively in the permanent team, strong arbitrators' merits in the permanent team will increase and therefore helps increase both network efficiency and effectiveness too. In this way, individual creativity in the permanent team is likely to lead to organizational creativity in a seamless way. Second, way of Increasing individual creativity should be sought from the perspective of organizational culture and knowledge management. Organization is supposed to provide a cultural atmosphere in which Innovative idea suggestions and active discussion among team members are encouraged. In this way, trust builds up among team members, facilitating the formation of organizational learning culture. Third, in the ad hoc team, organizational looming culture should be built such a way that individual creativity can grow up fast in a rather short period. Since time is tight, reasonable compensation policy, leader's Initiatives, and learning culture formation should be done In a short period so that mutual trust is built among members quickly, and necessary knowledge and information can be learnt rapidly. Fourth, in the permanent team, it should be kept in mind that the degree of participation in knowledge management determines level of Individual creativity. Therefore, the team ought to facilitate knowledge circulation process such as knowledge creation, storage, sharing, utilization, and learning among team members, which will lead to team performance. In this way, firms must control knowledge networks in permanent team and ad hoc team in a way mentioned above so that individual creativity as well as team performance can be maximized.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Korea Research Foundation

References

  1. Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E., "Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25. No. 1, 2001, pp. 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
  2. Amabile, T.M., "A model of creativity and innovation in organizations," Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, 1988, pp. 123-167.
  3. Amabile, T.M., Creativity in context, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996.
  4. Andriopoulos, C., "Determinants of organizational creativity: a literature review," Management Decision, Vol. 39, No. 10, 2001, pp. 834-840. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740110402328
  5. Baer, M., Oldham, G.R., Hollingshead, A. B., and Jacobsohn, G.C., "Revisiting the Birth Order-Creativity Connection: The Role of Sibling Constellation," Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2005, pp. 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_6
  6. Burt, R.S., Structural holes: The social structure of competition, Harvard University Press. M.A.: Cambridge, 1992.
  7. Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., and Newsted, P.R., "A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for measuring Interaction Effect: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and Voice Mail Emotion/ adoption Study," 17th International Conference on Information Systems, OH, 1996, pp. 21-41.
  8. Chin, W.W., The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research. NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998
  9. Coleman, J., Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, Harvard Business Press. 1990.
  10. Di Maggio, P.J. and Powel, W.W., "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields," American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, 1983, pp. 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  11. Eisenberg, J., "How individualism-collectivism moderates the effects of rewards on creativity and innovation: A comparative review of practices in Japan and US," Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1999, pp. 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00144
  12. Eisenberger, R. and Aselage, J., "Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity," Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, 2009, pp. 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.543
  13. Eisenberger, R., Haskins, F., and Gambleton, P., "Promised reward and creativity: Effects of prior experience," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, 1999, pp. 308-325. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1381
  14. Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B., A premier for soft modeling. Akron, Ohio, The University of Akron, 1992.
  15. Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P., and Kung-McIntyre, K., "Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, 2003, pp. 618-630. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040653
  16. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1981, pp. 39-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  17. Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J., "The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity," The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2004, pp. 209-226. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159573
  18. Goffee, R. and Jones, G., "The Character of A Corporation," HarperBusiness, Inc, 1988.
  19. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C., Multivariate Data Analysis: With Readings, 4thed. PrenticeHall, 1998.
  20. Isaksen, S.G., Puccio, G.J., and Treffinger, D.J., "An Ecological approach to creativity research: profiling for creativity problem solving," Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 3, 1993, pp. 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb00704.x
  21. Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B., Foundations of Behavioral Research. FortWorth, Harcourt Collage Publishers, 2000.
  22. Lee, K.C., Lee, S. and Kang, I.W., "KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance," Information and Management, Vol. 42, 2005, pp. 469-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.02.003
  23. Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E., "Demonstrating the Value of an Organization's Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire," Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2003, pp 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422303005002002
  24. Nerkar, A. and Paruchuri, S., "Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm," Management Science, Vol. 51, No. 5, 2005, pp. 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0354
  25. Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E., "The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2003, pp. 89-106.
  26. Pirola-Merlo, A. and Mann, L., "The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time," Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, 2004, pp. 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.240
  27. Prusak, L., Knowledge Management: The Ultimate Competitive Weapon IBM Global Service, 1997.
  28. Reagans, R.E. and Zuckerman, E.W., "Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams," Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2001, pp. 502-517. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.502.10637
  29. Robbins, S.P., "Organizational Behavior," Prentice-Hall, 2001.
  30. Schilling, M.A. and Phelps, C.C., "Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation." Management Science, Vol. 53, No. 7, 2007, pp. 1113-1126. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624
  31. Scratchley, L.S. and Hakstian, A.R., "The measurement and prediction of managerial creativity," Creativity Research Journal, 2000, Vol. 13, pp. 367-384.
  32. Smiricich, L., "Concepts of culture and organizational analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, Vol. 23, pp. 343-467.
  33. Soda, G., Usai, A., and Zaheer, A., "Network Memory: The Influence Of Past And Current Networks On Performance," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2004, pp. 893-906. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159629
  34. Sommer A. and Pearson C.M., "Antecedents of creative decision making in organizational crisis: A team-based simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 74, No. 8, 2007, pp. 1234-1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.10.006
  35. Song, S., Nerur, S., and Teng, J., "An Exploratory Study on the Roles of Network Structure and Knowledge Processing Operation in Work Unit Knowledge Management," The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2007, pp. 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240616.1240620
  36. Song, S. and Teng, J., "Effective Work Unit Knowledge Management (KM): An Exploratory Investigation of the Roles of Network, Task Environment, and KM Strategies," in: Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) Proceedings, Association for Information Systems, Milwaukee, 2006, pp. 1055-1074.
  37. Taggar, S., "Individual Creativity And Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources: A Multilevel Model," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, 2002, pp. 315-330. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069349
  38. Suh, T., Bae M., Zhao, H., Kim, S.H., and Arnold M.J., "A multi-level investigation of international marketing projects: The roles of experiential knowledge and creativity on performance," Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2009, pp. 211-220.
  39. Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M., "The Pygmalion process and employee creativity," Journal of Management, Vol. 30, 2004, pp. 413-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001
  40. Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., and Graen, G.B., "An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 3, 1999, pp. 591-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x
  41. Tsai, W., "Social Capital, Strategic Relatedness and the Formation of Intra-Organizational Linkages," Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 9, 2000, pp. 925-939. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200009)21:9<925::AID-SMJ129>3.0.CO;2-I
  42. Wold, H., Soft Modeling: the Basic Design and Some Extensions, in System Under Indirect Observations: Part 2. K.G. Joreskog and H. Wold, AmsterdamNorth-Holland, 1982.
  43. Yang, H.L. and Cheng, H.H., "Creativity of student information system projects: From the perspective of network embeddedness," Computers and Education, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2010, pp. 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.004
  44. Zhou, J. and Oldham, G.R., "Enhancing creative performance: Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative personality," Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 35, 2001, pp. 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01044.x
  45. Zhou, J., "When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.88, 2003, pp. 413-422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413