Learning and knowledge sharing

Tables 7.14 and 7.15 summarise the use of knowledge and skills in the workplace. The prominent means of knowledge transfer in the workplace was also assessed by asking recipients to rate the importance of different knowledge transfer mechanisms both abroad and in Serbia. Table 7.14 shows that the use of structured work teams and formal training are used consistently more abroad than in Serbia. The means for informal channel knowledge transfer mechanisms were higher in Serbia (3.77) than abroad (3.69). Comparing knowledge transfer mechanisms in Serbia according to different comparison groups, none was significant according to levels of recognition of knowledge, by Serbian or foreign ownership or FP versus NFP sectors.

Table 7.14: Means of knowledge generation and transfer, abroad and in Serbia: In your experience, how much do the following feature in the workplace? (absolute numbers)

5 4 3 2 1 SD Total Mean

Formal training programmes (Serbia) 16 49 44 24 4 0.99 137 3.36 % 11.7 35.8 32.1 17.5 2.9

Formal training programmes (Abroad) 42 67 23 7 1 0.86 140 4.01 % 30 47.8 16.4 5 0.7

Structured work teams (Serbia) 17 42 54 21 5 0.99 139 3.32 % 12.2 30.2 38.8 15.1 3.6

Structured work teams (Abroad) 46 62 26 4 3 0.91 141 4.02 % 32.6 44 18.4 2.8 2.1

Informal channels (Serbia) 42 43 37 14 3 1.05 139 3.77 % 30.2 30.9 26.6 10.1 2.1

Informal channels (Abroad) 33 50 45 11 3 0.98 142 3.69 % 23.2 35.2 31.7 7.7 2.1

5=to a very great extent, 4=to a great extent, 3=to some extent, 2=to little extent, 1=not at all

Table 7.15 shows how respondents rated, according to their own experiences, a series of statements concerning the acquisition of competences. The questions attempt to measure the ways in which individuals transfer knowledge at work, and identify any obstacles that might exist.

Table 7.15: Knowledge transfer (absolute numbers)

5 4 3 2 1 SD Total Mean

My employers have a management strategy for

encouraging employees to share knowledge 17 29 39 24 24 1.28 133 2.93 % 12.8 21.8 29.3 18 18

In our workplace, it is common to work individually 30 35 35 24 11 1.24 135 3.36 % 22.2 25.9 25.9 17.8 8.1

In my workplace, it is common to work in teams 26 40 38 19 11 1.88 134 3.38 % 19.4 29.8 28.3 14.2 8.2

The skills and knowledge I acquired abroad cannot

easily be transferred to Serbia 3 16 23 28 68 0.88 133 2.47 % 2.2 12 17.3 21 51.1

The knowledge and skills I have acquired can only

be transferred though observation 0 12 60 37 22 0.88 131 2.01 % 0 9.2 45.8 28.2 16.8

It is easy for me to pass on my knowledge and skills

to my colleagues 17 58 46 12 4 0.92 137 3.53 % 12.4 42.3 33.6 8.7 2.9

I have learned a lot from observing the work

practices of my colleagues 25 14 32 63 3 0.96 137 3.68 % 18.2 10.2 23.3 46 2.2

My acquired skills have wide applicability to a

number of different work environments 39 52 34 8 3 0.98 136 3.85 % 28.7 38.2 25 5.9 2.2

My skills are specific to my area of specialisation and

have little value outside of my workplace 2 17 25 48 41 1.05 133 2.18 % 1.5 12.8 18.8 36.1 30.8

5=to a very great extent, 4=to a great extent, 3=to some extent, 2=to a small extent, 1=to no extent

Table 7.15 shows that a relatively low proportion of respondents consider their employers have a knowledge management strategy (mean 2.93). Nevertheless the respondents signalled that they find it easy to pass knowledge to colleagues in Serbia. The lowest score (2.01) was recorded for assessing the importance of observation in knowledge sharing. Clearly, the respondents’ knowledge is not strictly tacit in nature and can be codified (which is easier to

share and capture than tacit knowledge). This result reiterates that the respondents acquired both tacit and explicit skills, as confirmed by a relatively high mean (3.68) recorded for the statement “I have learned a lot from observing the work practices of my colleagues” – highlighting transfer mechanisms that favour tacit knowledge. The emphasis on this channel of knowledge transfer could imply that job-specific skills in the workplace are tacit (due to a lack of codified procedures and formal training channels). It also suggests that a lot of learning takes place informally between colleagues. A mean of 3.85 points to the acquisition of generic and transferable skills. Similarly, the majority of respondents did not consider their skills to be job specific to their area of specialisation. This was echoed in the previous statement regarding applicability of skills to a number of different work environments. The majority of respondents also believe that it is easy for them to transfer knowledge from abroad to Serbia (mean 2.47), a finding that suggests at least some elements of their knowledge are transferable. The results probably point to the ease with which explicit, codified elements of knowledge can be transferred.

Organisational challenges in Table 7.15 were analysed by comparing the different groups. The results presented in Table 7.16 show some significant differences. In terms of working individually, the mean for those working in Serbian workplaces was significantly higher than in foreign firms (t=2.06; df=124; p<0.05), pointing to greater autonomy. The mean was also significantly higher in Serbian workplaces to the statement “the skills and knowledge I acquired abroad cannot easily be transferred to Serbia” (t=2.05; df=122; p=0.02). Finally, highly significant differences were found according to whether the respondents were looking for work abroad. Those looking for work abroad were less likely to think managers have a strategy for encouraging employees to share knowledge (t=-3.19, df=121, p<0.01). Moreover, those not looking for work abroad are more likely to state that their skills and knowledge cannot be transferred to Serbia (t=2.4, df=120, p<0.01).

Table 7.16: Knowledge transfer (means)

Workplace Sector Newcomer

Serbian Foreign t FP NFP t Non-NC NC t

My employers have a management strategy for encouraging employees to share knowledge 2.89 (1.25) 3.27 (1.22) ns 2.62 (1.18) 3.07 (1.29) ns 3.06 (1.28) 2.9 (1.17) ns

In our workplace, it is common to

work individually (1.17) 3.62 (1.11) 3.17 2.06** (1.29) 3.25 (1.20) 3.39 ns (1.47) 3.5 (1.19) 3.42 ns In my workplace, it is common to

work in teams (1.12) 3.31 (1.21) 3.71 ns (1.13) 3.06 (1.18) 3.52 ns (1.16) 3.35 (1.12) 3.67 ns The skills and knowledge I

acquired abroad cannot easily be transferred to Serbia

2.18

(1.24) (0.92) 1.73 2.05** (1.27) 2.16 (1.11) 1.96 ns (1.18) 1.96 (1.11) 2.23 ns The knowledge and skills I have

acquired can only be transferred though observation

2.53

(0.86) (2.06) 2.39 ns (0.85) 2.33 (0.88) 2.54 ns (0.87) 2.59 (0.88) 2.43 ns It is easy for me to pass on my

knowledge and skills to my colleagues

3.5

(0.99) (0.74) 3.62 ns (1.01) 3.35 3.59 (0.9) ns (3.36) 3.54 (0.98) 3.57 ns I have learned a lot from observing

the work practices of my colleagues

3.67

(0.96) (0.81) 3.75 ns (1.15) 3.79 (0.93) 3.65 ns (0.87) 3.66 (0.85) 3.87 ns My acquired skills have wide

applicability to a number of different work environments

3.87

(0.95) (1.04) 3.87 ns (1.01) 3.79 (0.97) 3.85 ns (0.95) 3.83 (0.82) 4.05 ns My skills are specific to my area of

specialisation and have little value outside of my workplace

2.22

(1.09) (1.04) 2.23 ns (0.94) 2.15 (1.09) 2.23 ns (1.11) 2.19 (1.02) 2.18 ns *** p< 0.01; ** p<0.05; * p<0.10; ns=not significant

The presence of autonomy indicates a lack of management oversight. This assertion is based on the idea that structures, hierarchies and defined responsibilities are associated with co-ordinated information flows (Noorderhaven and Harzing 2009: 727).

International orientation is not sufficient on its own to ensure that more effective knowledge sharing channels exist. A workplace culture that promotes a shared interest in knowledge sharing must also be in place. Two examples of workplaces described by interviewees illustrate the impact of utilising formal and informal mechanisms. Firstly, in Bogdan B’s workplace (Serbian government agency) there is an emphasis on informal knowledge circulation. Despite monthly meetings for employees to communicate developments in their work to other teams and units, Bogdan commented that management oversight of projects was minimal. As Bogdan noted, employees enjoy a high degree of autonomy and use their own expertise (such as geographical specialisations and language abilities) to direct projects. Employees work with minimal interference from management, and knowledge sharing occurs between colleagues thanks to strong inter-personal relations and trust. This way of working, directed by individual employees and not from above, does not encourage the development of procedures and formal knowledge transfer. Several employees remarked on the need for more procedures and managerial

oversight, in part to respond to the business practices of foreign partners and clients. In contrast, at Dejan V’s work (research institute) there are more efforts to manage knowledge. Dejan commented that employees use a central database to store information, which is a means of codifying knowledge described by Bartol and Srivastava (2002). However, while accepting the benefits of codifying and storing knowledge, many workplaces lack resources and capacity. Ivana K and Mladen M (Serbian IT company) commented that time restrictions are an obstacle to the development of procedures in the workplace and codification of knowledge held by individual employees. Zorica D (academic) also mentioned resource shortages as a hindrance to bringing new curricula and teaching methods - widespread abroad - to Serbia. Many courses require student access to computers, which Serbian universities lack. In general, the poor funding of Serbian universities is an obstacle, not least because students are unable to test or put into practice theoretical knowledge (i.e. computer software or modern technical equipment is lacking). As a further consequence, students also lack computer skills, particularly knowledge of specific software programmes used in, for instance, engineering or architecture. Nevertheless, academic staff members exhibit a desire to bring knowledge from abroad. The education sector in Serbia, although a relatively unreformed institution with outdated teaching methods and resource shortages, is also the key site where individuals can share knowledge. One notable means is through the style of teaching observed abroad. By altering their approach to teaching and personal interaction with students, they spread knowledge of foreign methods, curricula and resources.

An important obstacle to capturing knowledge at the organisational level is the lack of written communication as a business practice in Serbia (for instance, taking notes after speaking to clients). This is also relevant for accessing information sources when looking for employment. For instance, many people commented that company websites are not developed or updated. The absence of written communication and procedures is an obstacle to institutional learning since these are associated with the codification of knowledge. Helena J (Serbian NGO) remarked on the emphasis in Serbia on verbal communication, which ties in with the reliance on connections. Helena also noted that foreign organisations place more emphasis upon written communication and procedures. This is one means of codifying knowledge and contributing to the stock of organisational knowledge. Helena added that in Serbia work practices have a strong verbal element which means: 1) more emphasis on connections; 2) fewer procedures, and 3)

knowledge held by the individual and not internalised within the organisation. The lack of written communication can therefore be seen as an obstacle to knowledge sharing at the organisational level.