China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Qualitative Analyses of the Effectiveness of Toolbox Dialogues
Published in Graham Hubbs, Michael O’Rourke, Steven Hecht Orzack, The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, 2020
Marisa A. Rinkus, Michael O’Rourke
We view mutual understanding as an achievement gained from team reflection and perspective taking. Mutual understanding is exhibited by a group in which members have systematic knowledge of one another. Several observations are important here. First, mutual understanding is more robust if it goes beyond simple knowledge of one another. In most circumstances, group members have a minimal degree of mutual understanding that involves facts about each other (e.g., that one team member is a biologist, another team member is an engineer, and still another went to Michigan State), but more robust mutual understanding involves some degree of empathetic appreciation for how each other finds the world, i.e., what a team member cares about and knows. Second, more robust mutual understanding is grounded in common or mutual knowledge (Lewis 1969; Schiffer 1972). Mutual knowledge exists if, for example, the biologist knows something about the engineer, the engineer knows that the biologist knows this, the biologist knows that the engineer knows this about the biologist, and so on. Common knowledge of this sort knits a group together into a collective, ensuring that people share knowledge about one another openly and can coordinate their actions on that basis. Third, mutual understanding entails self-understanding. A team with high mutual understanding includes teammates who are self-aware and capable of representing their perspectives in discourse (Gonnerman et al. 2015; cf. Morin 2011). In groups with members who are new to one another, conversation is an important mechanism for generating mutual understanding (Ta et al. 2017), in part because each individual communicates their own perspective and thereby helps others understand them (Berger and Calabrese 1974).
Social capital, joint knowledge creation and relationship performance in buyer-supplier relationships
Published in Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 2023
Listowel Owusu Appiah, Vanessa Queennie Obey
Our search of the literature revealed that a few related studies have been conducted, but none offers a comprehensive view of how social capital is channelled through joint knowledge creation to enhance relationship performance. Zimmermann et al. (2018) examined how sourcing modes enhance the extent of knowledge sharing via social capital factors such as tie strength, networkability, shared understanding, and trust. Whereas this study contributes significantly towards how social capital relates to ‘knowledge issues’ in the buyer-supplier relationship, the focus is on knowledge sharing rather than joint knowledge creation. Li et al., (2014) examined how social capital enhanced organisational performance via information sharing. Then again, this study focused on information sharing as opposed to partners’ efforts at creating collaborative knowledge. As noted by (Bouncken, Pesch, and Reuschl 2016), joint (mutual) knowledge creation signifies joint learning among firms in an alliance and moves beyond knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, information sharing, absorptive learning, and partner learning. In another study, Tu (2020) examined the relationship between dyadic social capital and joint knowledge creation, but did not consider the various social capital dimensions, nor did the study examine any relationship outcome. Moreover, the study used bibliometric data that is focused on the context of ‘science knowledge creation’, while the current study is focused on knowledge creation in business enterprises using primary data.