The Knowledge Management Processes at Different Stages of Group Development

Based on a developmental approach, this study intended to analyze the extent to which the different stages of group development differ regarding the use of knowledge management processes. The sample comprised 211 teams belonging to a Portuguese military organization. In order to test the hypotheses a multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. The results showed that more mature and cooperative groups (Restructuring/Realization phase) apply to a greater degree the processes of knowledge management, while groups in which there is high intragroup competition and in which members try to “gain power” among themselves (Reframing phase), apply these processes to a lesser degree.

Keywords:
team knowledge management; group development; work teams

Authorship

Ana Pinto ¹1Endereço para correspondência: Universidade de Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra, Portugal. CEP: 3000-15. E-mail: luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

Paulo Renato Lourenço

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

Lisete Mónico

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

1Endereço para correspondência: Universidade de Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra, Portugal. CEP: 3000-15. E-mail: luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

Figures | Tables

Figures (1)
Tables (3)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Average scores of the KMT scale processes depending on the three phases of group development

Thumbnail

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix between GDS and KTM [N = 211 teams]

Thumbnail

Table 2
Average Scores and Standard Deviations of the KMT Scale Processes in Accordance with the Three Phases of Group Development: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (F Ratios) and Effect Size (η2)

Thumbnail

Table 3
Differences Between the Averages and Standard Errors (in brackets) of the KMT Scale and Constituent Processes Depending on the Phases of Group Development: Fisher’s LSD Multiple Comparison Tests

Figure 1 Average scores of the KMT scale processes depending on the three phases of group development

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix between GDS and KTM [N = 211 teams]

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Structuring (1)	4.28	.45	1.00	.31^ p < .01	.15^* * p < .05;	.22^ p < .01	.22^ p < .01	.16^* * p < .05;	.18^* * p < .05;	.19^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	.13	.21^ p < .01	.19^ p < .01	.17^* * p < .05;	.07	.03
Reframing (2)	3.51	.50		1.00	-.52^ p < .01	-.21^ p < .01	.01	-.30^ p < .01	-.25^ p < .01	-.27^ p < .01	-.12	-.25^ p < .01	-.31^ p < .01	-.04	-.18^ p < .01	.40^ p < .01	-.33^ p < .01	-.05
Restructuring/
Realization (3/4)	4.63	.40			1.00	.65^ p < .01	.37^ p < .01	.58^ p < .01	.61^ p < .01	.66^ p < .01	.44^ p < .01	.50^ p < .01	.68^ p < .01	.48^ p < .01	.57^ p < .01	-.04	.53^ p < .01	.03
KMT – global scale (4)	3.50	.25				1.00	.69^ p < .01	.72^ p < .01	.90^ p < .01	.90^ p < .01	.80^ p < .01	.86^ p < .01	.91^ p < .01	.82^ p < .01	.90^ p < .01	.28^ p < .01	.72^ p < .01	.01
Creation and external acquisition (5)	3.09	.32					1.00	.32^ p < .01	.54^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.54^ p < .01	.55^ p < .01	.47^ p < .01	.63^ p < .01	.60^ p < .01	.36^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	-.15^* * p < .05;
Creation and internal acquisition (6)	3.99	.32						1.00	.66^ p < .01	.60^ p < .01	.58^ p < .01	.57^ p < .01	.72^ p < .01	.47^ p < .01	.64^ p < .01	-.03	.73^ p < .01	.09
Attributing meaning to knowledge (7)	3.57	.30							1.00	.79^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.75^ p < .01	.84^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.79^ p < .01	.16^* * p < .05;	.69^ p < .01	.05
Sharing and intentional dissemination (8)	3.31	.31								1.00	.71^ p < .01	.74^ p < .01	.77^ p < .01	.68^ p < .01	.78^ p < .01	.22^ p < .01	.53^ p < .01	-.01
Sharing and unintentional dissemination (9)	3.51	.31									1.00	.65^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.58^ p < .01	.65^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	.54^ p < .01	-.03
Internal and intentional memory (10)	3.47	.28										1.00	.78^ p < .01	.71^ p < .01	.75^ p < .01	.13	.62^ p < .01	.08
Internal and tacit memory (11)	3.65	.29											1.00	.71^ p < .01	.79^ p < .01	.10	.78^ p < .01	.02
External memory (12)	3.38	.30												1.00	.71^ p < .01	.31^ p < .01	.46^ p < .01	-.02
Controlled recovery (13)	3.54	.28													1.00	.24^ p < .01	.65^ p < .01	.05
Automatic recovery (14)	2.94	.35														1.00	-.11	-.10
Utilization of knowledge (15)	4.06	.36															1.00	.07
Team Tenure in months(16)	224.91	84.72																1.00

Note.
^*
p < .05;
^**
p < .01

Table 2 Average Scores and Standard Deviations of the KMT Scale Processes in Accordance with the Three Phases of Group Development: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (F Ratios) and Effect Size (η2)

	Structuring (n = 52)		Reframing (n = 16)		Restructuring/Realization (n = 116)		F (2, 181)	η2
KMT – global scale	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
KMT – global scale	3.47	.24	3.27	.29	3.55	.23
Creation and external acquisition	3.14	.32	2.96	.33	3.11	.32	1.97	.021
Creation and internal acquisition	3.94	.29	3.69	.36	4.07	.30	12.45***	.121
Attributing meaning to knowledge	3.50	.30	3.34	.33	3.65	.27	11.36***	.112
Sharing and intentional dissemination	3.27	.31	2.97	.34	3.39	.30	14.39***	.137
Sharing and unintentional dissemination	3.51	.32	3.29	.30	3.56	.29	5.78^ p < .01	.060
Internal and intentional memory	3.47	.28	3.25	.33	3.52	.27	6.89^ p < .01	.071
Internal and tacit memory	3.58	.27	3.39	.31	3.72	.27	13.17***	.127
External memory	3.39	.32	3.24	.33	3.41	.30	2.29	.025
Controlled recovery	3.52	.27	3.28	.37	3.59	.27	8.66***	.087
Automatic recovery	3.01	.38	2.98	.40	2.90	.31	1.85	.020
Utilization of knowledge	3.95	.35	3.78	.46	4.16	.32	13.13***	.127

Note.
^*
p < .05;
^**
p < .01

Table 3 Differences Between the Averages and Standard Errors (in brackets) of the KMT Scale and Constituent Processes Depending on the Phases of Group Development: Fisher’s LSD Multiple Comparison Tests

	Phases of group development (GDS)
	Reframing (2)	Restructuring/Realization (3/4)
	Differences between the averages (KMT)
GDS	KMT – global scale
Structuring (1)	.202^ p < .01; (.07)	-. 081^* * p = .05; (.04)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 283^* ***** p < .001 (.06)
	KMT – constituent factors
GDS	Creation and external acquisition
Structuring (1)	.180* (.09)	. 031 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 149 (.09)
	Creation and internal acquisition
Structuring (1)	.251^ p < .01; (.09)	- .129^* * p = .05; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 380^* ***** p < .001 (.08)
	Attributing meaning to knowledge
Structuring (1)	.161* (.08)	- .151^ p < .01; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- .312^* ***** p < .001 (.08)
	Sharing and intentional disseminating
Structuring (1)	.295^ p < .01; (.09)	- .122^* * p = .05; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 417^* ***** p < .001 (.08)
	Sharing and unintentional dissemination
Structuring (1)	.219* (.09)	- .05 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 269^ p < .01; (.08)
	Internal and intentional memory
Structuring (1)	.225^ p < .01; (.08)	- .05 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 274^ p < .01; (.07)
	Internal and tacit memory
Structuring (1)	.195^* * p = .05; (.08)	- .140^ p < .01; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 335^* ***** p < .001 (.07)
	External memory
Structuring (1)	.154 (.09)	- .022 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 176^* * p = .05; (.08)
	Controlled recovery
Structuring (1)	.238^ p < .01; (.08)	- .066 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 305^* ***** p < .001 (.07)
	Automatic recovery
Structuring (1)	.032 (.10)	- .106 (.06)
Reframing (2)	-	.07 (.09)
	Utilization of knowledge
Structuring (1)	.171 (.10)	- .212^* ***** p < .001 (.06)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 382^* ***** p < .001 (.09)

Note.
^*
p = .05;
^**
p < .01;
^***
p < .001

How to cite

copy

Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília, 70910-900 - Brasília - DF - Brazil, Tel./Fax: (061) 274-6455 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: revistaptp@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

The Knowledge Management Processes at Different Stages of Group Development

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] 1Endereço para correspondência: Universidade de Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra, Portugal. CEP: 3000-15. E-mail: luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com