Search results

The study aims to determine how the acceptance of mistakes is related to adaptability to change in a broad organizational context. Therefore, it explores how knowledge, collaboration and learning cultures (including “acceptance of mistakes”) might help organizations overcome their resistance to change.

The study used two sample groups: students aged 18–24 years (330 cases) and employees aged >24 years (326 cases), who worked in knowledge-driven organizations. Structural equation models were developed, assessed and compared.

The effect of the “learning climate” on “adaptability to change” mediated by “acceptance of mistakes” has been detected for young students aged 18–24 years; however, this relationship is not significant for business employees aged >24 years. This result indicates that organizations, unlike universities, do not use mistakes as a tool to support learning that is to lead to change.

Both samples used in the study were obtained from Poland. The business sample was in the majority represented by small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, the presented findings may only be applicable to Poland.

Acceptance of mistakes is vital for developing a learning culture. Mistakes help employees adapt to change. Hence, a learning culture that excludes the acceptance of mistakes is somehow artificial and may be unproductive. Paradoxically, the findings reveal that the fact that employees’ intelligence (adaptability to change) improves via mistakes does not mean that organizational intelligence will also increase. Thus, organizations that do not develop mechanisms of learning from mistakes lose the learning potential of their employees.

This study proposes a constant learning culture scale that includes the “acceptance of mistakes” and “learning climate” dimensions. Further, it empirically proves the value of mistakes for adaptability to change. Moreover, it also contributes to the existing literature by demonstrating the mechanism of the relationship between knowledge, collaboration and learning cultures in the context of adaptability to change. This study breaks with the convention of “exaggerated excellence” and promotes the acceptance of mistakes in organizations to develop organizational intelligence.

This study aims to understand and compare how the mechanism of innovative processes in the information technology (IT) industry – the most innovative industry worldwide – is shaped in Poland and the USA in terms of tacit knowledge awareness and sharing driven by a culture of knowledge and learning, composed of a learning climate and mistake acceptance.

Study samples were drawn from the IT industry in Poland (n = 350) and the USA (n = 370) and analyzed using the structural equation modeling method.

True learning derives from mistake acceptance. As a result of a risk-taking attitude and critical thinking, the IT industry in the USA is consistently innovation-oriented. Specifically, external innovations are highly correlated with internal innovations. Moreover, a knowledge culture supports a learning culture via a learning climate. A learning climate is an important facilitator for learning from mistakes.

This study revealed that a high level of mistake acceptance stimulates a risk-taking attitude that offers a high level of tacit knowledge awareness as a result of critical thinking, but critical thinking without readiness to take a risk is useless for tacit knowledge capturing.

This chapter defines a learning culture and discusses the relationship between knowledge and learning. The authors explain why learning is essential to bringing knowledge to life and incentivizing knowledge flows and use. The chapter addresses the interplay between knowledge and learning cultures. A key point in the chapter is the value of mistakes as learning opportunities. The authors explain how mistakes are viewed in the industrial economy and how this perspective impedes critical organizational learning. Specifically, we define mistakes, explain the double cognitive bias of mistakes, explain the tendency and impact of hiding mistakes, the side effects of double mistake bias, learn to learn from mistakes, and take on the challenge of reconciling mistake acceptance and avoidance. Finally, the chapter addresses the importance of cultivating a learning climate to realize your learning culture.

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.

In this chapter, the authors explain the value of the KLC approach to building cultural capacity in knowledge-driven organizations. This chapter also explains the importance of coherent multilevel interactions to expose and experience a company culture. The authors reinforce that culture is learned simultaneously, consciously and unconsciously, through all company’s related experiences. The effects of leadership, hierarchy, and maturity on cultural capacity are discussed at the individual, team, and organizational levels. Finally, the chapter provides a step-by-step methodology and sample questions for taking stock of an organization’s cultural capacity.

The purpose of this paper to address the challenges on “what should the management plan for organization development (OD) toward becoming an innovative organization?”

This study applies the concept of innovation management, maturity model and roadmapping. The confirmatory factor analysis and the multi-criteria decision analysis are applied as the methodologies to evaluate the relative importance of each influencing factor and to assess the areas needed for improvement, respectively. A case example is also included to demonstrate how the proposed approach can be applied.

Comparing the assessment result and the strategic target defined by the management, the gaps can be diagnosed and then a roadmap guiding OD can be proposed based on a firm’s strategy for improvement.

This study proposes the approach and assessment model. Different companies always have their unique focus, so the management team have to modify the assessment model by following the proposed approach. Future research should be conducted to assess the effectiveness of each activity in increasing the level of innovativeness.

Ineffective development could result from setting a strategic direction and resource allocation based on the intuitive decisions of the management team. Therefore, it would be much better if the management team can systematically assess the current status and diagnose the areas needed for improvement to set an appropriate strategic direction.

The analytical approach to develop a strategic roadmap guiding a firm to become an innovative organization has not been presented in the existing literature.

Chapter 4 addresses the importance of internal knowledge cultures. It provides a deeper dive into how internal knowledge cultures can contribute to a company’s performance. The authors explain how knowledge culture shapes practical knowledge processes and fosters intellectual capital. The authors also provide insights into a critical knowledge paradox and discuss the interplay of knowledge paradoxes and cultural collisions. The chapter is supported by practical use cases that illustrate the points in the chapter.

This study aims to examine the micromechanisms of how knowledge culture fosters human capital development.

An empirical model was developed by using the structural equation modeling method based on a sample of 321 Polish knowledge workers employed in different industries.

This study provides direct empirical evidence that tacit knowledge sharing supports human capital, whereas tacit knowledge hiding does not, and this hiding is considered a waste of knowledge. If tacit knowledge does not circulate within an organization, it is a severe waste of an organization. The findings indicate that shame from making mistakes might impede the sharing of knowledge gained from making those mistakes, and in such cases, the knowledge remains hidden.

Leaders aiming to ensure human capital growth should implement an authentic learning culture composed of a learning climate and mistakes acceptance components that enable open discussion about mistakes on each organizational level.

The knowledge culture is found to be an essential element of building human capital but, at the same time, not sufficient without a learning culture, and its mistakes acceptance component. A permanent organizational learning mode that supports a continuous organizational shared mental model reframing is an antidote to tacit knowledge hiding.