Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance implications of matching adaption and innovation cognitive style with explicit and tacit knowledge resources

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

Some organizations are more effective at using their knowledge resources than are others, and this can lead to performance differences among organizations with equivalent resources. One aspect of organizations that helps to explain differences in effective use of organizational resources is the cognitive styles of organization members. We propose that a better matching of cognitive style and knowledge resources will improve organizational performance through improved knowledge resource utilization. In particular, and based on adaption-innovation theory (Kirton, 1976), we propose that teams of individuals with an adaptor cognitive style will perform better when explicit knowledge is available and teams of individuals with an innovator cognitive style will perform better when tacit knowledge is available. In addition, when there are significant differences in cognitive styles among a team of organizational members we suggest that training can improve the successful use of available organizational knowledge resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams SM (2005) Positive affect and feedback-giving behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20 (1), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allinson CW, Armstrong SJ and Hayes J (2001) The effects of cognitive style on leader-member exchange: a study of manager-subordinate dyads. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74 (2), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR, Raths J and Wittrock MC (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing. Longman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong SJ, Allinson CW and Hayes J (2004) The effects of cognitive style on research supervision: a study of student-supervisor dyads in management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education 3 (1), 41–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong SJ and Hird A (2009) Cognitive style and entrepreneurial drive of new and mature business owner-managers. Journal of Business Psychology 24 (4), 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barner R (2006) Managing complex team interventions. Team Performance Management 12 (1/2), 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL and Luckmann T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday, Garden City, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloodgood JM and Salisbury WD (2001) Understanding the influence of organizational change strategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies. Decision Support Systems 31 (1), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brivot M (2011) Controls of knowledge production, sharing and use in bureaucratized professional service firms. Organization Studies 23 (4), 489–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA and Sayles LR (1986) Inside Corporate Innovation. The Free Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang T and Chuang S (2011) Performance implications of knowledge management processes: examining the roles of infrastructure capability and business strategy. Expert Systems with Applications 38 (5), 6170–6178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen ANK and Edgington TM (2005) Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation: considerations for knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly 29 (2), 279–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilton M and Bloodgood JM (2010) Adaption-innovation theory and knowledge use in organizations. Management Decision 48 (8), 1159–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton MA, Hardgrave BC and Armstrong DJ (2005) Person-job cognitive style fit for software developers. Journal of Management Information System 22 (2), 193–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi SY, Lee H and Yoo Y (2010) The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: a field study. MIS Quarterly 34 (4), 855–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coff RW (1999) When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science 10 (2), 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra A and Un CA (2010) Why some firms never invest in formal R&D. Strategic Management Journal 31 (7), 759–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings J and Pletcher C (2011) Why project networks beat project teams. MIT Sloan Management Review 52 (3), 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dang Y, Zhang Y, Hu PJ, Brown SA and Chen H (2011) Knowledge mapping for rapidly evolving domains: a design science approach. Decision Support Systems 50 (2), 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davern MJ and Kamis A (2010) Knowledge matters: restrictiveness and performance with decision support. Decision Support Systems 49 (4), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defillippi RJ, Arthur MB and Lindsay VJ (2006) Knowledge at Work: Creative Collaboration in the Global Economy. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denford AS and Chan YE (2011) Knowledge strategy typologies: defining dimensions and relationships. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9 (2), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Toni AF, Nonino F and Pivetta M (2011) A model for assessing the coherence of companies’ knowledge strategy. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9 (4), 327–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierdorff EC, Bell ST and Belohlav JA (2011) The power of ‘we’: effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (2), 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dilla W, Janvrin DJ and Raschke R (2010) Interactive data visualization: new directions for accounting information systems research. Journal of Information Systems 24 (2), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donate MJ and Guadamillas F (2011) Organizational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management 15 (6), 890–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörfler V (2010) Learning capability: the effect of existing knowledge on learning. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8 (4), 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty D (1992) A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal 13 (Summer), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doumont J and Vandenbroeck P (2002) Choosing the right graph. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 45 (1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JS, Shaw D and Collier PM (2005) Knowledge management systems: finding a way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management 9 (1), 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser K (2010) Effective teamworking: can functional flexibility act as an enhancing factor? An Australian case study. Team Performance Management 16 (1/2), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French JRP, Caplan RD and Harrison RV (1982) The Mechanisms of Job Stress and Strain. Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield MJ, Taylor NJ, Dennis AR and Satzinger JW (2001) Research Report: modifying paradigms – individual differences, creativity techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Information Systems Research 12 (3), 322–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith RE (1994) Creative style and personality theory. In Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving (Kirton MJ, Ed), pp 34–50, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (S2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM and Baden-Fuller C (1995) A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, pp 17–21.

  • Groves KS and Vance CM (2009) Examining managerial thinking style, EQ, and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial Issues 21 (3), 344–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • He J and Wang HC (2009) Innovative knowledge assets and economic performance: the asymmetric roles of incentives and monitoring. Academy of Management Journal 52 (5), 919–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsapple CW and Wu J (2011) An elusive antecedent of superior firm performance: the knowledge management factor. Decision Support Systems 52 (1), 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung W, Ho C, Jou J and Kung K (2012) Relationship bonding for a better knowledge transfer climate: an ERP implementation research. Decision Support Systems 52 (2), 406–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelton AS, Pennington RR and Tuttle BM (2010) The effects of information presentation format on judgment and decision making: a review of the information systems research. Journal of Information Systems 24 (2), 79–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmerle J, Cress U and Held C (2010) The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organizational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8 (1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton MJ (1976) Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 61 (5), 622–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirton MJ (1994) A theory of cognitive style. In Adaptors and Innovators: Styles of Creativity and Problem Solving (Kirton MJ, Ed), pp 1–33, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch A (2011) Firm-internal knowledge integration and the effects on innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management 15 (6), 984–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozhevnikov M (2007) Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin 133 (3), 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar JA and Ganesh LS (2011) Balancing knowledge strategy: codification and personalization during product development. Journal of Knowledge Management 15 (1), 118–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam W and Chua A (2005) Knowledge management project abandonment: an exploratory examination of root causes. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 16 (1), 723–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence PR and Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee JGCY and Nissen ME (2010) Accelerating acculturation through tacit knowledge flows: refining a grounded theory model. VINE 40 (3/4), 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard NH, Beauvais LL and Scholl RW (2005) A multi-level model of group cognitive style in strategic decision making. Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (1), 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone LP, Nelson DL and Barr SH (1997) Person-environment fit and creativity: an examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Management 23 (2), 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloria MB (2008) A review of the main approaches to knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6 (1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu D and Betts A (2011) Why process improvement training fails. Journal of Workplace Learning 23 (2), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus ML (2001) Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • McQueen RJ and Chen J (2010) Building script-based tacit knowledge in call centre trainees. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8 (3), 240–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova S and Sidorova E (2011) From group-based work to organizational learning: the role of communication forms and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9 (1), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken FJ and Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 21 (2), 402–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2008) Management knowledge and knowledge management: realism and forms of truth. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6 (1), 62–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffett S, McAdam R and Parkinson S (2002) Developing a model for technology and cultural factors in knowledge management: a factor analysis. Knowledge and Process Management 9 (4), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy WH and Dacin PA (2009) Sales contest research: business and individual difference factors affecting intentions to pursue contest goals. Industrial Marketing Management 38 (1), 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy WH, Dacin PA and Ford NM (2004) Sales contest effectiveness: an examination of sales contest design preferences of field sales forces. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR and Winter S (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen K, Randall R and Christensen KB (2010) Does training managers enhance the effects of implementing team-working? a longitudinal, mixed methods field study. Human Relations 63 (11), 1719–1741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissen ME (2007) Knowledge management and global cultures: elucidation through an institutional knowledge-flow perspective. Knowledge and Process Management 14 (3), 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pask G (1972) A fresh look at cognition and the individual. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 4 (3), 211–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1967) The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poujol FJ, Fournier C and Tanner JF (2011) Compliance versus preference: understanding salesperson response to contests. Journal of Business Research 64 (7), 664–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro FL and Ferreira VLT (2010) Using knowledge to improve preparation of construction projects. Business Process Management Journal 16 (3), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert LP, Dennis AR and Ahuja MK (2008) Social capital and knowledge integration in digitally enabled teams. Information Systems Research 19 (3), 314–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury M (2008) From instructional systems design to managing the life cycle of knowledge in organizations. Performance Improvement Quarterly 20 (3,4), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprangel J, Stavros J and Cole M (2011) Creating sustainable relationships using the strengths, opportunities, aspirations and results framework, trust, and environmentalism: a research-based case study. International Journal of Training and Development 15 (1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey J and Barnett E (2000) Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure. Journal of Knowledge Management 4 (2), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam M and Youndt MA (2005) The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal 48 (3), 450–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle BM and Kershaw R (1998) Information presentation and judgment strategy from a cognitive fit perspective. Journal of Information Systems 12 (1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Zee K, Atsma N and Brodbeck F (2004) The influence of social identity and personality on outcomes of cultural diversity in teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35 (3), 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V (1999) Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly 23 (2), 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I (1991) Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences 22 (2), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh G (2002) The communal resource and information systems. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 11 (2), 85–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh G and Roos R (1996a) Arguments on knowledge and competence. In Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition (von Krogh G and Roos J, Eds), Sage Publications, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh G and Roos R (1996b) Imitation of knowledge: a sociology of knowledge perspective. In Managing Knowledge: Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition (von Krogh G and Roos J, Eds), pp 100–115, Sage Publications, London.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM (1987) Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of Group Behavior (Mullen B and Goethals GR, Eds), pp 185–208, Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou Z and Chen Z (2011) Formation mechanism of knowledge rigidity in firms. Journal of Knowledge Management 15 (5), 820–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu B and Watts SA (2010) Visualization of network concepts: the impact of working memory capacity differences. Information Systems Research 21 (2), 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, U.S.A.

    James M Bloodgood & Michael A Chilton

Authors
  1. James M Bloodgood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael A Chilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James M Bloodgood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bloodgood, J., Chilton, M. Performance implications of matching adaption and innovation cognitive style with explicit and tacit knowledge resources. Knowl Manage Res Pract 10, 106–117 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.3

Keywords

Search

Navigation