Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Palmira Juceviciene and Vyda Mozuriuniene
The above-highlighted structure <strong>of</strong> knowing helps define <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> organizational knowing (in
this work it has been reduced to <strong>the</strong> explicit and tacit knowledge in respect to an organization). Not
only Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI model’s ideas, that enable distinguishing organizational
knowing at group and organization’s levels, are <strong>of</strong> great significance. Significant is also Johnson’s
(2007) approach that employees may create <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge by <strong>the</strong>ir own reflection.The latter
approach allows claiming that <strong>the</strong> organizational knowing is a dimension not only on a collective level,
but also on an individual level. The existence <strong>of</strong> knowledge on <strong>the</strong> collective and individual levels is
supported by Cook and Brown (1999).
Hence, organizational knowing in structural terms can be identified as explicit and tacit knowledge,
recognized by an organization as important for its performance and existing on <strong>the</strong> three levels: a)
individual knowing, required for individual performance at an organization, b) group (units, project
groups, etc.), c) entire organization’s (e.g., knowing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mission, vision, goals, etc.).
However, is organizational knowing <strong>the</strong> only entity <strong>of</strong> knowledge that exists at an organization?
Stankeviciute (2002) has considered organizational knowing to be a holistic category <strong>of</strong> a higher
abstraction degree, defining collective knowing which constantly varies in relation to <strong>the</strong> explicit and
tacit knowledge <strong>of</strong> organization’s members and <strong>the</strong>ir groups. One part <strong>of</strong> it is embedded in products,
concepts, strategies, and is an institutionalized form <strong>of</strong> procedures and rules. The o<strong>the</strong>r part remains
at organization’s level as a form <strong>of</strong> tacit knowing. Taking into account Johnson’s (2007) idea that
individuals create knowledge through reflections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir experience, it can be stated that <strong>the</strong>y create
knowledge not only inside, but also outside <strong>the</strong> organization, reflecting <strong>the</strong>ir own life experiences.
They can also learn and acquire informal knowledge in o<strong>the</strong>r ways, formally unknown to <strong>the</strong>
organization, which, in turn, may be a part <strong>of</strong> learning processes on individual and collective levels.
Therefore, organization’s knowing can structurally consist <strong>of</strong> two parts:
Organizational knowing, important to an organization, recognized and encouraged by it (explicit
and tacit knowledge at individual, group, and entire organization’s level).
Informal knowing, existing at an organization and formally not considered by <strong>the</strong> organization as
significant for performance; it is mainly formed during informal learning processes. The
organization is not interested in <strong>the</strong>se processes and does not put efforts to encourage <strong>the</strong>m.
Informal knowing, as explicit and tacit knowledge, can also be determined at <strong>the</strong> organization on
three levels: individual, group, and <strong>the</strong> entire organization. However, <strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> informal
knowing on <strong>the</strong> entire organization’s level may elicit broad discussions.
At this point, <strong>the</strong> main question emerges: whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong> informal part <strong>of</strong> knowing, which exists at
an organization, but is not ascribed to organizational knowing, is significant to successful performing
<strong>of</strong> work at an organization? Empirical research is required to answer this question.
3. Empirical research methodology <strong>of</strong> organization‘s knowing
Empirical research on organization’s knowing is a complicated problem, first <strong>of</strong> all, because this
knowing includes tacit knowledge. Considering <strong>the</strong> problems with researching such knowledge, not all
<strong>the</strong> three aforementioned knowledge forms – tacit and implicit knowledge as well as tacit knowing, are
being determined, but only implicit knowledge and some part <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge which can be
expressed by individuals.
A case study strategy is to be applied to <strong>the</strong> research on organization’s knowing, which allows going
deeper into organization’s context.
A multinational company with <strong>the</strong> headquarters based in Finland, with subsidiaries in 8 countries, was
selected for <strong>the</strong> research. It is referred to as Company X due to ethical considerations. A multinational
company was chosen in order to be able to research several enterprises acting in a commonly defined
context. Company X was not chosen accidentally: a) it applies knowledge and solutions required to
overcome <strong>the</strong> challenges <strong>of</strong> modern business as well as social challenges; b) it pays much attention to
staff development; c) company headquarters that shapes <strong>the</strong> organizational culture and philosophy is
located in Finland, a country that fosters Scandinavian culture in developing high technologies and
innovations; d) one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> co-authors <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> article has had business relationships <strong>of</strong> 15 years with this
multinational company; thus, <strong>the</strong> activity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company and its people could be closely followed within
this period.
276