Search results

This study aims to present the overview of intellectual capital creation micro-mechanisms concerning formal and informal knowledge processes. The organizational culture, transformational leadership and innovativeness are also included in the investigation as ascendants and consequences of the focal relation of intellectual capital and knowledge processes.

Based on a sample of 1,418 Polish knowledge workers from the construction, healthcare, higher education and information technology (IT) industries, the empirical model was developed using the structural equation modeling (SEM) method.

The study exposes that the essence of transformational leadership innovativeness oriented is developing all intellectual capital components. To do so, leaders must support both formal and informal knowledge processes through the organizational culture of knowledge and learning. Furthermore, for best results of the knowledge transformation into intellectual capital, the learning culture must be shaped by both components: learning climate and acceptance of mistakes.

Presented findings can be directly applied to organizations to enhance innovativeness. Namely, leaders who observe that the more knowledge is formally managed in their organizations, the less effective the knowledge exchange is-should put more effort into supporting informal knowledge processes to smoothly develop human and relational intellectual capital components. Shortly, leaders must implement an authentic learning culture, including the mistakes acceptance component, to use the full organizational potential to achieve intellectual capital growth. Intellectual capital growth is essential for innovativeness.

This study presents the “big picture” of all intellectual capital creation micro-mechanisms linking transformational leadership with organizational innovativeness and explains the “knowledge paradox” identified by Mabey and Zhao (2017). This explanation assumes that intellectual capital components are created informally (i.e. human and relational ones) and formally (i.e. structural ones). Therefore, for best effects, both formal and informal knowledge processes, must be supported. Furthermore, this study exposes that the intensity of all explored micro-mechanisms is industry-specific.

A major part of knowledge management for knowledge-intensive firms such as professional service firms is the increasing focus on thought leadership. Despite being a well-known term, it is poorly defined and analysed in the academic and practitioner literature. The aim of this article is to answer three questions. First, what is thought leadership? Second, what tensions exist when seeking to create thought leadership in knowledge-based organisations? Third, what further research is needed about thought leadership? The authors call for cross-disciplinary and academic–practitioner approaches to understanding the field of thought leadership.

The authors review the academic and practitioner literature on thought leadership to provide a rich oversight of how it is defined and can be understood by separating inputs, creation processes and outcomes. The authors also draw on qualitative data from 12 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of professional service firms.

Through analysing and building on previous understandings of the concept, the authors redefine thought leadership as follows: “Knowledge from a trusted, eminent and authoritative source that is actionable and provides valuable solutions for stakeholders”. The authors find and explore nine tensions that developing thought leadership creates and propose a framework for understanding how to engage with thought leadership at the industry/macro, organisational/meso and individual/micro levels. The authors propose a research agenda based on testing propositions derived from new theories to explain thought leadership, including leadership, reducing risk, signalling quality and managing social networks, as well as examining the suggested ways to resolve different tensions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, they are the first to separate out thought leadership from its inputs, creation processes and outcomes. The authors show new organisational paradoxes within thought leadership and show how they can play out at different levels of analysis when implementing a thought leadership strategy. This work on thought leadership is set in a relatively under-explored context for knowledge management researchers, namely, knowledge-intensive professional service firms.

Grounded in paradox theory, and with the objective of structuring and extending existing knowledge of conflicts of interest (e.g. trade-offs) in packaging logistics, the purpose of this paper is to identify categories of paradoxical tensions in packaging systems used in supply chains, and to develop a conceptual framework that describes these categories.

This research uses a theory building approach. It develops a conceptual framework of paradoxical tensions for packed products in supply chains. It revises and extends current knowledge in this domain by applying paradox theory from organisational research.

The paper develops a generic, conceptual framework that identifies, categorises and describes packed product paradoxes on two system levels: supply chain and company levels. The categories of paradoxes refer to performing, organising, belonging and learning.

The framework provides a new theoretical explanation of conflicts of interest in packaging logistics in terms of paradoxical tensions related to packed products in supply chains. It structures and increases general understanding of such tensions within and between actors in a supply chain. The paper also discusses differences in terminology between tensions which are possible to settle and those which lead to paradoxes.

The framework provides a structure for analysing the organisational impact of strategic packaging decisions. It can help highlight different stakeholders' organisational constraints related to packaging.

The framework's systematic categorisation of four types of paradoxical tensions, with thorough descriptions of the meaning of packed product paradoxes of each type, offers an expanded and in-depth explanation of the organisational impacts of packed products in supply chains.