1

Role of HRM in knowledge integration And Team

Effectiveness
Kallemullah Mirani
Karachi University Business School
                       
Abstract

This research paper is focusing on using critical  knowledge  integration for achieving
both objective and subjective team effectiveness goals. However knowledge integrating
resource is challenging activity for teams. We examine in this study how team goal
orientation impacts a team's internal knowledge integration and how multiple
dimensions of team effectiveness affected by knowledge integration. This data were
collected from 90 self-directed teams which were engaged in an extended business
simulation and each team showed as a top management team of a business firm.
Knowledge integration positively influenced team both learning and performance-prove
goal orientation. Both subjective and objective dimensions of team effectiveness are
impacted by the knowledge integration. We also found halfway help for an intervening
capacity of internal data coordination. The investigation suggests an objective direction
method to incorporating data in gatherings and recommends that this strategy has
gigantic ramifications for each investigation and practice. 
                

Introduction
Companies are increasingly relying on teams to meet their goals for performance (Gibson et al.,
2007). Definition: Social systems consisting that comprise three or more People whom are
connected in the course of their duties and are responsible for the results Teams bring together
individual experienced, expert knowledge and specialization to tackle the various tasks (Hoegl
and Gemuenden 2001).
Companies deploy teams in various environments, including software development, and new
Development of products, R&D, engineering, and consultancy, to meet their objectives
(Gardner, Gino, and Staats 2012)
Teams offer companies the possibility of and combing specific information resources (Alavi and
Tiwana 2002). This is an active assimilation and consolidation of people's and specialized
expertise and the consolidation of their specialized knowledge within teams is called internally
integrated knowledge (Mehta to be referred to as internal knowledge integration (N. Mehta and
Bharadwaj 2015) In the article, we will highlight its important role in teams; prior research has
proven that knowledge integration plays a significant role in teams. It is a major factor that
influences the team's performance that is a major factor in team outcomes, such as teamwork,
for instance. (Tiwana and Mclean 2005)¸decision quality (Robert, Dennis, and Ahuja 2008) and
project complete ((A. Mehta and Mehta 2018)).
In spite of this wealth of research, we have a limited understanding of the process of knowledge
integration The influence of a broad set of team performance outcomes. However, the impact is
2

restricted. Team effectiveness provides a real and broad image of assessment by the team ,in
that it goes far beyond the team's quantitative results (such as objectives).performance) that
includes qualitative results, in addition. Qualitative dimensions of team effectiveness is the
viability of the team (a team's ability to keep working with success in the future) (team
satisfaction, success in the future) (a feeling of wellbeing that arises from Team experience) and
team perception performance (a perception of how well the team is performing).are doing
(‘Lemieux-Charles and McGuire - 2006 - What Do We Know about Health Care Team
Effectivene.pdf’, 2006)
Knowledge integration is a topic that has the potential to impact both quantitative and qualitative
and qualitative elements of team performance, advancing this more deeply Understanding can
be beneficial for teams-based businesses. Furthermore, as Teams are used to rise in
contemporary companies and teams are typically collaborate for approximately 1 to 2 years
(‘Mehta and Mehta - 2018 - Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness A Te.pdf’, 2018)and
evaluating the subjective results, like team viability, team satisfaction, as well as perceived
performances, are described as essential for assessing the performance of an individual (‘Bell
and Marentette - 2011 - Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizat.pdf’, no 2011) . This
is one of the gaps that our current study addresses. This is why we First research question: Do
knowledge integration and knowledge prediction predict both qualitative and quantitative
aspects of team efficiency?
While teams will require integrating knowledge in order in order to make it more effective, it's
much simpler to do so. It's easier said and done. The team members are usually unwilling to
share information and mix their specific information sources (‘Basaglia et al. - 2010 - IT
knowledge integration capability and team perfo.pdf’, no 2010). Previous research has indicated
that the team's diversity at the deep level may be the cause for this resistance ((‘Harrison et al. -
1998 - BEYOND RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY TIME AND THE EFEECTS.pdf’, no 1998).
Deep-level diversity is a key factor The difference is detectable ((‘Horwitz - 2005 - The
Compositional Impact of Team Diversity on Perf.pdf’, no 2005). These distinctions can hinder
the team's effort to integrate knowledge. Another issue teams have to overcome when trying to
integrate Their resources of knowledge is hidden in their profile this is a sign of a Pattern of
sharing of important information among team members (‘Stasser - 1992 - Information salience
and the discovery of hidden p.pdf’, no 1992).The results of studies have revealed that teams
that are plagued by the issue of a secretive nature have difficulties. Combining the knowledge of
individuals ((‘Stasser and Stewart - Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Gr.pdf’, no
1992).To make things more difficult Team members can't be required to join together. their
inputs to knowledge ((‘Staples and Webster - 2008 - Exploring the effects of trust, task
interdependen.pdf’, no 2008); (‘He et al. - 2014 - Modeling team knowledge sharing and team
flexibili.pdf’, no 2014).
 
The majority of the research is in line with the primary function of team interactions to
achieve 4,444 levels of head and abstract team outcomes. According to ( (‘Marks and
Zaccaro - Performance Implications of Leader Briefings and T.pdf’, no 2000)". Achievement is not
only the ability and available assets of team members but also the purpose of the way
team members utilize to interact. In order to achieve these, team members must one
another accomplished the "work". The team processes, such as knowledge integration
are based on exercises that need team members work together. For instance team
members typically learn by communicating the information verbally, exchanging
significant curios, organizing their knowledge and sharing knowledge about who is
aware of what ((‘Rulke and Galaskiewicz - 2000 - Distribution of Knowledge, Group Network
3

Structure.pdf’, no 2000). This inter-personal coordination and communication activities do

will not only help team members to form an understanding of problems and solutions
(Reich and Benbasat 1996), but also fulfill their scholarly and social needs and result in
greater team success.

Expanding the scope of integration, it is the process of accumulating your knowledge

and then connecting it to the ideas of others to gain previously untapped knowledge. If
you are interested in these pursuits the team members will consider it essential as
their knowledge is seen as the primary factor in achieving the objectives of the
team. This can boost the satisfaction of your team. Alongside mixing others'
information to accomplish the goals of the team, (i) feels that team members are able
to work effectively to resolve the problem, (ii) ability of team members- Both could
increase the motivation to continue by working in tandem, which is increasing the long-
term rationality. It is interesting that only a few studies have looked at the 444 groups
that are related to attitudes of mind, like satisfaction and accomplishment.

In the past, discussions have examined and outlined the positive relationship between
team performance and knowledge integration (Joy, Fang and Schroeder, no
2012). absorption of team's knowledge assets makes strides by large specialized,
operational knowledge available to teams, thereby improving performance
( Mitchell,2006). The team should consider the fact that the use of social intelligence
and tools that are part of knowledge integration can help create collaboration and
understanding of team's goals and how they can be achieved and enables greater
execution (‘Reich and Benbasat - 1996 - Measuring the Linkage between Business and
Informa.Pdf’, n.d.).

Teams are becoming more common in organizations to meet their performance targets
(Gibson, Waller, Carpenter and Conte 2007). The term "friendly frameworks" refers to
groups of at minimum three. Persons who are linked to their work and have legal
accountability for their outcomes, teams combine independent of information, talent
and special capabilities to endure assignments of a modified characteristics (Hoegl and
Gemuenden 2001).Firms establish teams across a variety of settings, including the
development of advancement and R&D, designing and even counselling, to meet their
goals (‘Gardner et al. - 2012 - Dynamically Integrating Knowledge in Teams Transf.Pdf’, n.d.)
.Teams provide companies with an effective method of taking the best of their
particular abilities and joining them with other sources (Alavi and Tiwana 2002).This
energetic digestion and integration of the individual's skills within teams is known as
internal expertise integration (‘Mehta and Bharadwaj - 2015 - Knowledge Integration in
Outsourced Software Devel.pdf’, no 2015) .

The importance of knowledge integration is emphasized in groups, previous studies

have emphasized that knowledge integration affects outcomes of a bunch, including
innovation (Tiwana and Mclean 2005) and the quality of preference (‘Robert et al. - 2008 -
Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digita.pdf’, no 2008) and the project's success
(Mitchell and Nicholas, 2006), (‘Mitchell and Nicholas - 2006 - Knowledge Creation in Groups
The Value of Cogniti.pdf’, no 2006)

Literature review
4

Knowledge integration
In response to the need for integration and differentiation in the 21st century, the concept of
integrated knowledge stresses the value of specialization in terms of economics and the
efficiency of integration. In the same way, competitiveness is based on the variety and value of
specialized knowledge and an organization's ability to incorporate information in a way that is
an effective method.
A company's capacity to integrate knowledge can be determined through two important
mechanisms direction as well as organizational procedures and organizational routines . The
assumption behind this is that, rather than having experts who are all knowledgeable about all
issues, direction facilitates the sharing of knowledge between specialists through making tacit
knowledge specific rules  and organizational routines decrease the need to communicate
explicit knowledge. Additionally, to the two factors, Grant argues that competitiveness of an
organization due to integration of knowledge will be measured by three aspects which include
the efficiency of the integration process, extent of integration, and the flexibility of integration.
According to his argument, the degree of efficiency is contingent on the degree that there is a
common understanding between the participants, as well as the level of coordination, and the
structure of the organization. In the words of Demons Common knowledge, or knowledge
redundancy, in Nonaka and Takeuchi's terminology, refers to the shared understanding of an
area of study that is shared by the members of an organization who are involved in
communication. For instance, in order to facilitate discussions about the development of an
exchange system between two people, a trader and a technologist it is vital that the trader
know a basic knowledge of the technology and that the technologist understand some aspect
of trading. The lower the amount of general knowledge and the less cohesive the interaction
between members of the organization. In spite of the importance of shared knowledge, the
quality of coordination is only increased by repetition.
That is, once the common knowledge is developed the different specialists must constantly
practice to improve the effectiveness of their coordination. This is evident in the concept of
common mind. It allows seamless coordination between experts, thereby guaranteeing
consistency in performance. Additionally, the degree of efficiency is determined by how the
structure of the organization is aligned with the nature of tasks that are performed by the
members. For example, a formal structure is less prone to the requirement for communication
and increases the effectiveness that integration can achieve in an enduring setting. In contrast,
in situations where the degree that environmental changes are significant, organic structures
can meet the growing requirements for communication and allow the enhancement of
efficiency in integration [38]. The definition of integration is the amount of complexity involved in
the integration of different information. In the context of the efficiency of integration, it's evident
that the larger the complexity of integration the less integration efficiency that could be
anticipated.

Ability enhancing
The ability dimension is typically described by the abbreviation KSA (knowledge of skills,
knowledge and capabilities ((‘Fu et al. - 2013 - Exploring the Performance Effect of HPWS on
Profes.Pdf’, n.d.). Practices that enhance ability aim to improve the three elements. The most
common examples include methods for recruiting employees and formalized training
(‘Karunarathna - 2021 - Impact of High Performance Work System on Organiza.Pdf’, n.d.).
Ability is the collection of the various behaviours employees must exhibit when they work to
perform their work task effectively. It is defined as the capability to transform internal
capabilities into tangible outcomes. Abilities are essential personal traits which lead to effective
and high-quality performance. Abilities can also be described as the set of abilities and
behaviour that companies expect to see in employees' work performance (Rankin 2002).
5

 Employers use these abilities for controlling employees' performance as well as learning and
development processes, the selection processes and compensation (Armstrong 2007). The
skills are fundamental for the employee's performance. The employee must be proficient and
have know-how and experience to complete the task. The ability to perform is the primary
factor that determines the performance of employees. Companies place a lot of importance on
the training and development of their executives since every ability and skill is possible to
develop including social intelligence. All of this impacts the overall process of HRM.
We can conclude that HRM practices that enhance ability Training & Development impacts
perceived individual performance as reflected by the characters that represent the following:
Customer orientation, result orientation, company values' orientation and ability to work in a
team, Adaptability and flexibility, timekeeping/accuracy and development potential.

Motivation enhancing
motivation-enhancing HR bundle and the opportunity-enhancing HR bundle (Bailey, 1993;
Appelbaum et al., 2000; Lepak et al., 2006). Each bundle is a mix of HR practices with the
same goals.
The principal goal (based on Chuang and co. 2013) of HRM practices that increase motivation
is to draw attention to research-related activities, and to encourage researchers to participate in
research and to stimulate and increase the discretionary efforts of individuals.
Motivation enhancing HRM activities (i.e. rewards, compensation and management of
performance) have been linked to morale in the workplace as stated by (Guerci and co. 2015)
rewards and compensation as one of the motivation-enhancing HRM activities creates a
prestigious moral environment by providing rewards, sanctions, and discipline (e.g. increases
in pay, grants). This is based on the notion that workers are obligated to be morally responsible
in the event that they are compensated with non-monetary and fiscal rewards (Guerci and co.
2015). As per (Guerci, Radaelli, De Battisti and Siletti (2017) stressed the fact that
compensation and reward perform an essential role in enhancing moral authority by rewarding
the moral conduct of the people in the company. In addition, performance appraisal is among
the HRM practices that improve motivation that is utilized to increase the authority of morality
(Arulrajah 2015). Moreover, Parboteeah et al. 2014), reported that performance appraisal can
enhance the moral climate of the organization by combining moral conduct as the primary
factors in the evaluation process. This type of training is simple to create a solid ethical climate
for the organization.

Opportunity-enhancing practices
Opportunity-enhancing practices focus on employee participation and empowerment and
typical examples are direct participation, job design, and team working.
Opportunity-enhancing practices appear particularly important to stimulate extra-role
performance. Particularly for managers working in the semi public sector who supervise
employees with a lot of freedom, our research highlights the importance of investing in
practices that offer plenty of opportunities to be successful. Additionally, managers should be
aware of the need to implement practices that increase motivation, since these techniques
have been shown to be insignificant for employees who work in the semi-public sector. Our
research also shows that the same practical benefits exist for both private and public
managers, as a number of shared most effective HRM practices were identified in our study,
specifically to encourage extra-role performance. In developing this HRM system, managers
6

must take into consideration the universal principles as well as specific conditions in their
sector.
The opportunity-enhancing HRM practices that will motivate employees to improve their
contribution to the decision-making processes and enhance their performance (Sanchez-Marin
et al., 2017). For example investing in education activities for families that have knowledge of
the company and with a significant participation in the company's decision-making process
could enhance their skills and improve the overall performance of the business

Team viability
To say that something is sustainable implies that the entity (a) can live, (b) has the potential of
developing or growing or developing, or (c) is able to grow or develop, and has a good
probability of succeeding or being viable (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary 2010, 2010). This
notion of viability is a major importance to both organizations and teams. For instance, theorists
of organizational theory and researchers are concerned with the growth and decline of
organizations (Boeker 1997; Whetten 1987) as well as sustainability in the organization (Bansal
2002; Kono & Antonucci, 2006). In research on teams Hackman's (1987) guidelines that team's
social interactions should sustain or improve the ability of team members to collaborate on
future tasks is a good illustration of a team's capacity to keep going (to be able to sustain or live)
or, even better be in a state of development and improvement. We believe the spirit of
Hackman's definition of criterion helpful, but we have some changes to the definition in light of
the advances that have been made in the literature on teams since 1987. We consider team
viability in regard to the dynamic nature of teams in modern organisations. With the long-term
nature of teams as well as the possibility that they will experience members changing over the
course of their lives We conceptualize viability of teams as a characteristic of the group. We
draw inspiration from recent research of groups (e.g., Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith 1999;
Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Marks et al. 2001) and then define viability of teams in the context of
performances. In addition, we define the meaning of the concept in the hope of reducing
confusion about the concept by future researchers. In particular, we distinguish possible
antecedents for group viability (e.g. social processes and cohesion) in the context of viability of
a team. We define viability of a team as the capacity of a team to achieve the growth and
sustainability needed for continued success in the future performances.
Hackman (1987) has been one of the first to address the extent that a team is able to finish
other tasks as an efficiency measure. Sundstrom and Sundstrom. (1990) reiterated the
importance of the viability of a team as a performance criteria shortly afterward. Hackman
offered three general criteria to measure effectiveness. (a) "the output produced by the team
must meet or exceed the standards of performance of those who are able to are able to review
and/or receive the work and review the output, (b) (b) the experience of the group should, in
general meet rather than annoy the individual needs of members of the group as well as (c) the
social activities employed in the execution of the work must enhance or maintain the ability of
group team members to collaborate for the next team task and tasks (p. 323). While Hackman
did not employ the phrase ''team viability'' when he developed his concept, this last definition is
commonly employed to describe the viability of a team concept (e.g., Barrick et and. 1998).
Sundstrom et al. (1990) also proposed that there is a greater understanding of team
effectiveness that goes beyond performance and suggested the viability of the team as a
possible measure. It was suggested by the authors that minimum viability of a team is satisfied,
active, and willingness to work together (p. 122). (p. 120) as well as that a more expansive
definition of viability could encompass concepts like cohesion, norms, coordination between
members maturing communication, and problem-solving. Hackman's (1987) as well as
Sundstrom and Sundstrom al. 's (1990) theories of viability for teams were comparable in that
they had an emphasis on working together in the near future but they differed in how Hackman
7

stressed social interactions as did Sundstrom and colleagues. covered a wide range of terms
that ranged from communication to problem-solving.

Team satisfaction
Although team satisfaction is an important aspect of team performance however, it shouldn't be
used to determine the viability of a team. Kozlowski and al.'s (1999) concept of developing
teams offers insights into the reason team viability and team viability are important.
Focusing on the viability of the team as a construct of the team is a way to differentiate the two
from team satisfaction and other shared characteristics of the team (e.g. cohesion, teamwork).
The shared team characteristics are rooted in emotions, attitudes, experiences of values,
cognitions, or actions that are shared by members of the team (Klein and Kozlowski 2000) and
are a personal-level concept that is aggregated at the group level. Take, for instance, team
satisfaction. The majority of measures focus on the members' level of satisfaction, which is then
compared at the group level (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; LePine et. (2008)). Although it's a
team-level concept, the base of measurement is at the individual level. Sometimes, sharing is
proved through empirical evidence (LePine and co. 2008). Team viability is a reflection of an
overall team characteristic that defines a team as a whole , and doesn't necessarily result from
the individual characteristics of the individual members (Klein and Kozlowski 2000). When
teams share their properties the implicit requirement that team members have to have the same
concept of interest. Research and theories try to clarify why and how team members achieve
this (Klein and Kozlowski 2000). If a property of a global team like team viability there is no
expectation or expectation that team members are being able to share the concept of interest.
We view team viability as a concept that can be viewed as team-wide that is different from
previous concepts that rely on an attraction or satisfaction with the team component which are
rooted in individual responses, and are then re-configured to teams (e.g., Jehn et al. 2008;
Phillips, 2001; Resick and co. (2010)

.
Team perceived performance
In terms of performance, teamwork efficiency is among the most important areas. as it is well-known
that teams that are more efficient result in better team performance and innovation, and
sustainability (‘Berber et al. - 2020 - Relationship between Perceived Teamwork Effectiven.Pdf’,
n.d.). The teamwork survey instrument was developed and identified four elements
which include the allocation of resources as well as team leader authority significant
goals for the project and involvement of management, as indicators of team efficiency
as well as goal achievement in project performance as indicators of teamwork
performance. (‘McComb et al. - 2008 - Project team effectiveness the case for sufficien.pdf’, no
May 2008). satisfaction and team performance and the psychological aspect of team
performance was not a part of the study. (‘Guchait et al. - 2016 - Making Teamwork Work
Team Knowledge for Team Effe.pdf’, 2016).
Team performance can be assessed from the other perspective. Hackman discovered
that cohesion, efficiency and the capacity to learn are the top three factors that
determine the effectiveness of a team. The three most important criteria for team
effectiveness are cohesion, productivity, and learning . Others have presented team
performance in terms of quality such as high-quality decision making and product
quality, as well as production volume and more. The authors also discussed the quality
of their teamwork in terms of decision quality, product quality. Rosen and Dietz
discovered that the primary results of teamwork are the outcomes from tasks such as
error rate as well as completion time, satisfaction of members; and learning outcomes
such as improved knowledge skills, attitudes, and abilities. One of the possible
8

measures of teamwork's performance is the level of satisfaction among

consumers. When assessing the performance of a team there are other indicators that
refer to team members' emotional reactions and viability of the team . Affective
reactions typically are a reflection of the team's atmosphere and how team members
are treated. Team viability is typically correlated with the criteria of the team level,
whereas members who would like to remain in the team and are satisfied, the team's
environment, team commitment and cohesion of the group are considered to determine
viability.

Team objective performance

A team can be defined as a work unit comprising at least two persons that work
together towards a shared purpose (Baker and Salas 1997). Cordery (2004) says that
he has stated that teams can be established in a variety of ways but the most
frequently cited reason is as a result of technological and economic factors. The
implicit assumption for team performance is that the combination of knowledge
capabilities, skills and knowledge could produce outputs that are superior to each
individual (Fay, Borrill, Amir, Haward, & West Amir, Fay, Haward, and West). The
development of a team can be described on two levels. The primary is the acquisition
of and the exchange of information. Senge (1990) is believed to have proposed that
team-based learning can result in the creation in shared models that help to bring team
members together. Through a series of studies, Marks, Zaccaro, and Mathieu (2000)
and Marks, Sabella, Shawn Burke as well as Zaccaro (2002) proved that cross-team
learning (training group members on how to fulfill the tasks of the other team
members) led to stronger mental models shared by all team members that increased
performance over an uncontrolled group. The second stage of team growth

However, regardless of the findings of this study, no one is aware of the ways in which
integration of knowledge affects the complete group's adequacy result is not complete.

Team effectiveness provides an vast and real-world image of team efficiency, since it
is more than quantifiable team outcomes, like Goal performance, and incorporates
subjective results measured by subjective indicators of team efficiency. This is team
responsibility the team's ability to be effective in the future as well as team fulfillment
a feeling of wealth derived from collective perceptions, and the team's obvious
execution an understanding of how well the team is working (Hackman 1990; Cohen &
Bailey, 1997).Since knowledge integration can impact both the qualitative and
quantitative aspects of team performance, gaining an understanding of the team's
strengths and weaknesses can be useful for team-based companies. Additionally, as
the use of teams maintains to growths in current firms typically work together for an
average of 1 to 2 year (Thomson, 2004), Asses subjective results such as teamwork,
satisfaction, and perceived performance, is as crucial as assessing goal performance
(Smith, 2008; Bell & Marentette,2011).This represent the first loophole that the current
study addresses. So, our first question is What is the extent to which teams expect
each of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of team performance? Although teams
need to combine knowledge in order to be successful This is much easier said and
easier to implement. Teams are typically unwilling to share and integrate their
expertise in technology (Basaglia, Caporarello, Magni, and Pennarola, 2010).Previous
research has revealed that the diversity of a team could be the cause of this
resistance (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998).Deep-level diversity comprises different
attitudes of team members beliefs, values and convictions, which are difficult to being
recognized (Horwitz 2005).)
 9

Figure 1: Hypothesized model of the Role of HRM in knowledge integration And Team
Effectiveness

Ability enhancing HRM Team Viability

practices

Motivation enhancing Team Satisfaction

Knowledge
HRM practices
   integration Goal
Team Perceived
Performance
Opportunity enhancing
HRM practices Team Objective
Performance

Figure 1 represents the hypothesized model of the relationship between team

knowledge integration, and team effectiveness. Also, a summary of the constructs
included in the current study, their theoretical orientations, and
their relevance to the hypothesized model is presented in Appendix A. Next,
we discuss the motivation for the current study and theoretical background in
detail.

knowledge is identified since the heredity fabric of a firm, whereas the firm's raison deter
is to supply a setting for integration of this knowledge to require benefit of the financial
reality of the markets (ptusak, 1996). teams give a real platform of knowledge
 10

integration over many kinds of spaces (Alavi and Tiwana 2002); Okhuysen as well as
Eisenhardt, 2002; Robert et al 2008. Team members have different portfolios of
essential know- how , aptitude as well as abilities, teams perform knowledge integration
to effectively acclimatize, combine and synthesize these knowledge assets to get their
objectives 9 Alvi and tiwana 2002). behind knowledge integration not only it requires
team members to mutually unravel team level issues, more ever it also requires them to
form on each other's thoughts, abilities, as well as mastery and to realize new learning. 

 Given these changed aspects, it's conceivable that the compelling knowledge
integration would impact a horde of group results. an audit of letter writing on knowledge
integration verifies these ideas in (table 1). Knowledge integration is related to results
like group learning and team memory as well as team creativity, team choice quality,

Table 1: Previous studies on knowledge integration.

Prior Studies on
Knowledge Antecedents Mediator or Moderator Outcomes
Integration

Alavi and Tiwana (2002) KM systems’ support of: Knowledge integration

Transactive memory
Mutual understanding
Knowledge sharing
Within-team ties

Basaglia et al. (2010) Autonomy climate Knowledge integration Team efficiency

Experimental climate Overall team effectiveness

Gardner et al., 2012 Relational resources Knowledge integration Team performance

Mehta and Bharadwa (2015) Team sentry processes Knowledge integration

Team guard processes

Mehta, Hall, and Byrd Team IT-use Project uncertainty Knowledge combination
Team relational Knowledge exchange
Team cognition

Mitchell (2006) External knowledge access Project completion

Knowledge integration
 11

Table 1: Continued

Prior Studies on
Knowledge
integration Antecedents Mediator or Moderator Outcome

Okhuysen and Information sharing Knowledge integration

Eisenhardt (2002) Questioning others
managing time

Robert et al. (2008) Structural capital Team decision

quality
Relational capital
Cognitive capital
Environment

Taylor and Greve (2006) Knowledge combination Team innovations

Tiwana (2004) Knowledge integration Software design effectiveness

Software defect density
Software development
efficiency

Tiwana and McLean Relational capital Expertise integration Creativity

(2005) Absorptive capacity
Expertise heterogeneity
 12

Walz et al. (1993) Team conflict Team learning

Team memory
Knowledge integration

and extended and extended completion times (Walz, Elam curtis 1993, Janz as well as
prasanphanich, 2003; tiwana and Mclean 2005, Mitchell 2006. So, in spite of this
impressive collection of research yet, our method of determining any aspect that might
impact knowledge integration on all-encompassing measures of team efficiency
remains a bit shaky.

The main reason is the fact that team efficiency can be a multidimensional concept
which includes both quantitative as well as qualitative components, including team
effectiveness, team viability and satisfaction with the team (Hackman, 1990).team
experimentally alludes to the possibility of a group to continue in a positive direction
for the future. A satisfied team members convey the feeling of satisfaction within team
members, which arises from an effective team interaction. In the end that team
performance is evaluated both independently and subjectively as perceived
performance, to determine if the team has achieved its goals.

As can be seen in table 1. Earlier treatment within the realm of knowledge integration
has not always provided a complete analysis of its impact on various team
effectiveness measures. The majority of ponders have focused on a specific team's
outcome as execution. also a choice quality (Robert et al 2008; Gardner et al
2012). Different conductors who have studied the effects of integration into knowledge
on teams' effectiveness have also implemented teams, such as unidimensional
development. In this instance, Basaglia et al 2010 assessed team effectiveness by
measuring the team members' perceptions of the team's viability. So, when Fedor
Ghosh, Fedor Caldwell, Maurer as well as singhal 2003 looked at satisfaction of the
team as a result of the team's noel-edge designs, where there was a constrained to a
team's satisfaction by a great victory, but not always satisfaction with team
experiences.

In this paper, we argue that a more comprehensive assessment of the impact that
knowledge integration has on group performance is needed. Most often, this is in the
context of the complicated nature of non-routine knowledge-based tasks. Knowledge
integration can be a challenge and usually involves a analysis of the group's cognitive
and social efforts in tasks such as combining different perspectives to come up with a
common understanding of issues that are not routinely discussed or blending
unutilized information with what the team currently knows. Similar exercises require
teams to overcome their preconceptions and come up with new methods to reach their
goals. Some teams find that locking in these complex social and intellectual processes
can result in more prominent satisfaction and greater confidence in the team's ability
to function effectively in the future. On the other hand , a small number of teams might
view that knowledge integration is a process that requires and a lot of effort or
effort. Recognition of this kind can be significance despite their importance knowledge
integration within teams can be difficult, team members are reluctant to share
13

knowledge that is unique between their own (basaglia and co., 2010) and they are not
compelled to do so (Staples and Webster 2008; He et al 2014 because knowledge
integration requires combination and the synthesis of knowledge, team managers
frequently find that knowledge integration can strengthen their team members' inability
to build up their members' capabilities. The inability to share knowledge has been
attributed to issues such as deep-levels of diversity, as well as the proximity of a
veiled image (Stasser and Stuart 1992; Harrison and Hoewitz 1998, Harrison et al
Hoewitz 2005) when team members shift in their beliefs and values They will likely
require the motivation to share and organize their own information.

Methodology

Sample description

Eisenhardt's (1989), suggestion to adopt an inductive approach, given the nature of

research questions is appropriate. Inductive approaches are desirable when there is
potential to build, extend or refine a theory by looking at the phenomenon in a new
context. The table 1 gives the details about the case organizations. Four of the seven
sample case organizations (Cases D-D) come from the Business- and Knowledge
sectors.

Data sources

The qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 59 employees, HR and

training managers and CEO/COO from case study organizations. Secondary data from
organizational documents and policies were also collected and transcribed verbatim.

An overview of various analytical techniques

Two stages were involved in the analysis. The first was an unstructured analysis.
Leximancer-4 was used to analyse case studies of transcripts. Software for specialist
content analysis. Next, similar to the traditional For identifying qualitative issues,
abductive analysis was used. Second order themes are derived from the first-order
data concepts. This stage It involved more specific theoretical coding through an
iterative process To link the AMO literature to the initial concepts and codes. Second
order themes are identified and evidence sought. These influences have had a variety
of effects on the goals and objectives of KI. Leximancer-4 allows automated extraction
of seed concepts by using Machine learning, statistical processes (Smith & Humphreys
2006). Validated algorithms (Metropolis and al., 1953). The application Analyses: (i)
Frequency counts and relational cooccurrence of text in a Two-sentence blocks allow
for auto-identification key concepts by using a two-sentence block and themes; (ii)
creates conceptual maps that depict the relationships There are many themes and
concepts to choose from (Smith and Humphreys 2006) Manual coding is a key
component of qualitative research (Smith 2003. It is therefore not surprising that this
approach has been used in numerous instances. The applied disciplines of HRM (Malik
and al., 2017), Marketing Management (Dann 2010), International Business and
Psychology (Liesch 2011).

Concepts and themes

14

The application analyses words and concepts using a non-selective programming

language. It uses synonyms, relationships, and frequency to search the transcript
(Harwood et. al., 2015). After undergoing approximately 1000 interactions with the
data, the resultant concepts and themes can be clustered into conceptual words
(Cretchley, et. al. 2010). After the automatic generation of concepts, editing was used
to combine concepts and plural words. For example, process' and ‘processes’ were
transformed into processes and client respectively and customer and clients into
clients. The process was then followed by analysis of the seed concepts and their
relationship to other sub-concepts or themes, using conceptual map and textual
exploration.

Data analysis and the results

We identified several HRM practices that had an impact on the goals of

KI. Although the emphases of these practices varied at the case level, they all
shared similar content in AMO-enhancing HRM practice across cases. These
findings focus on the relationship between KI goals and how they were influenced
By AMO-enhancing HRM practices.

HRM and efficiency in KI

These findings indicate that KI efficiency was achieved by HRM practices such as
investing in training and developing (ability), focused hiring(ability), competency-based
management (motivation), and team work (opportunity). Each of these HRM practices
are discussed in detail.

References

Alavi, Maryam, and Amrit Tiwana. 2002. ‘Knowledge Integration in Virtual Teams: The Potential Role
of KMS’. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (12):
1029–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10107.
‘Basaglia et al. - 2010 - IT Knowledge Integration Capability and Team Perfo.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Bell and Marentette - 2011 - Team Viability for Long-Term and Ongoing Organizat.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Berber et al. - 2020 - Relationship between Perceived Teamwork Effectiven.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Fu et al. - 2013 - Exploring the Performance Effect of HPWS on Profes.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Gardner et al. - 2012 - Dynamically Integrating Knowledge in Teams Transf.Pdf’. n.d.
Gardner, Francesca Gino, and Bradley R. Staats. 2012. ‘Dynamically Integrating Knowledge in
Teams: Transforming Resources into Performance’. Academy of Management Journal 55
(4): 998–1022. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0604.
‘Guchait et al. - 2016 - Making Teamwork Work Team Knowledge for Team Effe.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Harrison et al. - 1998 - BEYOND RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY TIME AND THE EFEECTS.Pdf’.
n.d.
‘He et al. - 2014 - Modeling Team Knowledge Sharing and Team Flexibili.Pdf’. n.d.
15

Hoegl, Martin, and Hans Georg Gemuenden. 2001. ‘Teamwork Quality and the Success of
Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence’. Organization Science
12 (4): 435–49. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635.
‘Horwitz - 2005 - The Compositional Impact of Team Diversity on Perf.Pdf’. n.d.
Joy, Wei He, Yulin Fang, and Andreas Schroeder. n.d. ‘TRANSACTIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS,
KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION, AND TEAM PERFORMANCE IN GEOGRAPHICALLY
DISPERSED TEAMS’, 13.
‘Karunarathna - 2021 - Impact of High Performance Work System on Organiza.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Lemieux-Charles and McGuire - 2006 - What Do We Know about Health Care Team
Effectivene.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Marks and Zaccaro - Performance Implications of Leader Briefings and T.Pdf’. n.d.
‘McComb et al. - 2008 - Project Team Effectiveness the Case for Sufficien.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Mehta and Bharadwaj - 2015 - Knowledge Integration in Outsourced Software Devel.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Mehta and Mehta - 2018 - Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness A Te.Pdf’. n.d.
Mehta, Anju, and Nikhil Mehta. 2018. ‘Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness: A Team Goal
Orientation Approach: Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness’. Decision Sciences
49 (3): 445–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12280.
Mehta, Nikhil, and Anandhi Bharadwaj. 2015. ‘Knowledge Integration in Outsourced Software
Development: The Role of Sentry and Guard Processes’. Journal of Management
Information Systems 32 (1): 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2015.1029381.
‘Mitchell and Nicholas - 2006 - Knowledge Creation in Groups The Value of Cogniti.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Reich and Benbasat - 1996 - Measuring the Linkage between Business and Informa.Pdf’. n.d.
Reich, Blaize Horner, and Izak Benbasat. 1996. ‘Measuring the Linkage between Business and
Information Technology Objectives’. MIS Quarterly 20 (1): 55.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249542.
‘Robert et al. - 2008 - Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digita.Pdf’. n.d.
Robert, Lionel P., Alan R. Dennis, and Manju K. Ahuja. 2008. ‘Social Capital and Knowledge
Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams’. Information Systems Research 19 (3): 314–34.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0177.
‘Rulke and Galaskiewicz - 2000 - Distribution of Knowledge, Group Network Structure.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Staples and Webster - 2008 - Exploring the Effects of Trust, Task Interdependen.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Stasser - 1992 - Information Salience and the Discovery of Hidden p.Pdf’. n.d.
‘Stasser and Stewart - Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Gr.Pdf’. n.d.
Tiwana, Amrit, and Ephraim R. Mclean. 2005. ‘Expertise Integration and Creativity in Information
Systems Development’. Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (1): 13–43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045836.