Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Jiří Franek and Eva Grublova
among all workers in all industries and institutions. But an accurate identification <strong>of</strong> knowledge works
is <strong>the</strong> problem. The business world heavily favours <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> instruments such as <strong>the</strong> Myer-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI) personality style assessment (Myers et al. 1998, Mládková 2008), to assess
differences in personality styles or talent management (Buckingham, C<strong>of</strong>fman 2005). But such as
tools are helpful but not sufficient when it comes to knowledge work itself. Also o<strong>the</strong>r authors mention
<strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge focus in knowledge management assessments and application (Fahey,
Prusak 1998, Albers 2009). According to claims above <strong>the</strong> tacit knowledge could be a key for
identification <strong>of</strong> knowledge workers, but comprehensive personality assessments are not properly
focused on it.
An instrument for identification <strong>of</strong> knowledge workers in organizational structure should help to
uncover knowledge workers among o<strong>the</strong>r members <strong>of</strong> an organization and by applying appropriate
support to those specific types <strong>of</strong> KWs, change <strong>the</strong> way, how are information and knowledge formally
distributed and shared. Knowledge managers can draw a better picture <strong>of</strong> knowledge workers
network and find best way how to support knowledge management activities more efficiently. It can
also contribute to human resources management in tasks <strong>of</strong> building cross organizational teams,
finding <strong>of</strong> right working positions and managers to delegate work to subordinates that are best for <strong>the</strong>
desired job.
Therefore, identification <strong>of</strong> KWs in any organization level seems to be crucial for fur<strong>the</strong>r organizational
knowledge development and thus for its competitiveness. There were various studies and works on
knowledge workers performance evaluation and measurement or utilization <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge.
However, <strong>the</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> this paper is to point out on importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relationship <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tacit knowledge
and knowledge workers and design a concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> instrument for knowledge worker typology
identification in organizations. The paper also summarizes <strong>the</strong>oretical background and major claims
and statements for fur<strong>the</strong>r research <strong>of</strong> this matter.
2. The relationship between knowledge, knowledge work, and knowledge
workers
2.1 Knowledge and its types
As it was mentioned above an organization (e.g. its employees, workers) possesses tacit and explicit
knowledge. Explicit knowledge is tangible mostly as a written text or in a form <strong>of</strong> audio and video files.
Explicit knowledge can be codified in organizational rules, routines, and procedures, or made tangible
o<strong>the</strong>rwise. Ano<strong>the</strong>r very important factor is that people are consciously aware <strong>of</strong> its usage and its
creation. Organizations use various information technology (IT) tools to support retention and sharing.
Explicit knowledge can be perceived as a knowledge that is adequately and properly represented by
facts, figures, symbols, and data. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand tacit knowledge originally identified by Polanyi
and his conception <strong>of</strong> it has been consistently applied by researchers in a variety <strong>of</strong> fields. Tacit
knowledge represents almost 90% <strong>of</strong> all knowledge (Mládková 2008). It is a combination <strong>of</strong> explicit
knowledge, experiences, behaviour, mental models, feelings, emotional and physical dispositions,
etc. Tacit knowledge is not inherent only to individuals but also to groups. Critics mention classical
statement from Wittgenstein (in Ein-Dor 2006, p. 849-850): “The limits <strong>of</strong> my language are <strong>the</strong> limits <strong>of</strong>
my mind. All I know is what I have words for.” Polanyi (in Ein-Dor 2006, p. 850) claimed “...we can
know more than we can tell.” But knowledge that “we cannot tell” can sometimes crucial when words
cannot express all <strong>the</strong> detail <strong>of</strong> a physical entity. This is important when it comes to creativity and thus
innovativeness. The concept tacit knowledge can be regarded as cognitive sensations for which we
have not yet found words or we may regard to tacit knowledge as a form <strong>of</strong> sensory inputs and
gestalts. In o<strong>the</strong>r words tacit knowledge is kind <strong>of</strong> personal “know-how” that is difficult to articulate
because it is derived from individual experience and beliefs. Transfer <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tacit knowledge is a major
challenge for knowledge workers and managers. More knowledge dimensions were derived by Alavi
and Leindner (2001). The have added individual, social, declarative, procedural, causal, conditional,
regional and pragmatic levels.
2.2 Knowledge work
According to Heavin and Neville (2006) knowledge work means <strong>the</strong> ability to create an understanding
<strong>of</strong> nature, organizations, and processes, and to apply this understanding as a means <strong>of</strong> generating
wealth in <strong>the</strong> organization. That is, work that comprises to a large extent <strong>the</strong> tasks <strong>of</strong> retrieving,
evaluating, integrating, and creating knowledge. Knowledge work thus involves both application and
299