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

Palmira Juceviciene and Vyda Mozuriuniene
perhaps incorrectly forecasted at an organization and/or not empowered enough by its learning
environments.
It is also important to consider <strong>the</strong> fact that a) explicit, but not tacit part <strong>of</strong> organizational knowing; b)
tacit, but not explicit part <strong>of</strong> organization’s informal knowing are more enhanced. It can be affirmed that
organizational knowing, more than organization’s informal knowing, is created in such spaces <strong>of</strong> an
enterprise which provide conditions to create explicit knowledge. The assumption that organization’s
informal knowing is created while <strong>the</strong> employees gain experience in various spaces <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir lives and
learn incidentally is also ra<strong>the</strong>r convincing. The tacit knowledge collected and/or created <strong>the</strong>reby is
used at an organization. Unfortunately, employees scarcely articulate it to o<strong>the</strong>rs. Are <strong>the</strong>y not willing or
not able to do so? Here we have to remember that <strong>the</strong> research limits itself to determining tacit
knowledge which is implicit (explicit but not articulated, for some reason) as well as <strong>the</strong> one that lies in
<strong>the</strong> sub-consciousness, but can be made explicit by using special methods (e.g., expert help).
Therefore, having in mind that by answering questions <strong>the</strong> employees have meant <strong>the</strong> knowledge
already known to <strong>the</strong>m, it can be stated that <strong>the</strong>re are reasons to stop <strong>the</strong>m from expressing <strong>the</strong>
perceived knowledge that is “kept inside”. Therefore, it seems rational that a person might behave, for
instance, like <strong>the</strong> one under <strong>the</strong> pressure <strong>of</strong> competition or manager’s autocratic behaviour.
Nonaka, von Krogh and Voelpe (2006) emphasize that Japanese and Western companies differ when
coordinating knowledge creation through organizational forms. In <strong>the</strong>ir words, organizational units <strong>of</strong>
Western firms are based on <strong>the</strong> division <strong>of</strong> labour and specialization. Hierarchy and explicit knowledge
dominate here. This creates difficulties in generating innovations. Meanwhile, Japanese organizations
support formal and informal groups and o<strong>the</strong>r activities and both tacit and explicit knowledge is
created in this process. The researched subsidiaries generate not only explicit knowledge (although it
dominates), but also tacit knowledge, including informal knowledge (unfortunately, to a ra<strong>the</strong>r
moderate extent). Thus, <strong>the</strong> aforementioned traits <strong>of</strong> Western companies are not totally typical to <strong>the</strong>
surveyed enterprises. However, <strong>the</strong> researched subsidiaries and <strong>the</strong>ir uniting headquarters, ra<strong>the</strong>r
successful in dealing with organizational learning (especially, in creating <strong>the</strong> explicit knowledge), still
have not become learning organizations as to empower considerable creation <strong>of</strong> informal tacit
knowledge in <strong>the</strong>m. It is <strong>the</strong> task for <strong>the</strong> practitioners seeking <strong>the</strong>ir organizational innovation. How this
is to be implemented, remains <strong>the</strong> task for researchers who should continue getting deeper into <strong>the</strong>
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> learning organization, processes and mechanisms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong>
organization’s knowing.
6. In conclusion
Organization’s knowing is <strong>the</strong> formation which secures organization’s prosperous activity more than
organizational knowing does.
Organization’s knowing consists <strong>of</strong> two parts: organizational knowing (recognized as important by
organization and supported by it) and informal knowing (not recognized as important by organization).
The empirical study (carried out in <strong>the</strong> advanced multinational company) shows that organizational
knowing is a few times more required than organization’s informal knowing. However, informal
knowing is no less significant than organizational knowing, since it can be used to compensate <strong>the</strong>
knowledge that was not predicted (because <strong>of</strong> extremely rapidly changing environment, on-going
innovation processes, etc.) by organization as necessary for its performance.
The fact that informal knowing is necessary at each level (individual, group, and <strong>the</strong> entire
organization’s) for successful work performance is a serious basis to claim that no entire
organization’s competence and even no competencies at particular “work places“ can be completely
predicted.
The employees enhance organizational knowing (particularly, its explicit part, not tacit) more than
informal knowing (though, its tacit part is created more than explicit). Employees’ insufficient attention
to creating informal knowing may be caused by managers’ failure to understand <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong>
informal knowing for successful performance. Therefore, creation <strong>of</strong> informal knowing is left without
managerial support.
To sum up, organization’s knowing is a formation, significant for <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory and practice <strong>of</strong> knowledge
management. In <strong>the</strong>ory, it is relevant to conduct research, analyzing <strong>the</strong> interaction <strong>of</strong> knowledge,
comprising organizational knowing and organization’s informal knowing which results in creating new
282