International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 3 (March 2024), Pages: 149-157

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

The application of transactive memory in the learning organization and the role of credibility

 Author(s): 

 Alotaibi Arif *

 Affiliation(s):

 College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3107-7302

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.03.016

 Abstract

Studies have shown that transactive memory plays a significant role in how learning occurs within organizations. While many studies have looked at what influences the growth of transactive memory, not much research has been done on how the thought processes of people working in groups are formed. This area of study examines the importance of how knowledge is organized in people's minds at work for the growth of transactive memory and how this process is affected by individual characteristics. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by looking at how trust and skill, known as credibility dimensions, affect the growth of transactive memory. For this purpose, information was gathered from 239 people working at a paint and coating company in Saudi Arabia. The results indicate that both trust and skill significantly influence the development of transactive memory.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Transactive memory, Learning organizations, Credibility dimensions, Trust, Competence

 Article history

 Received 7 August 2023, Received in revised form 14 February 2024, Accepted 29 February 2024

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Arif A (2024). The application of transactive memory in the learning organization and the role of credibility. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(3): 149-157

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2  

----------------------------------------------   

 References (84)

  1. Abrams LC, Cross R, Lesser E, and Levin DZ (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(4): 64-77. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2003.11851845   [Google Scholar]
  2. Akgün AE, Byrne J, Keskin H, Lynn GS, and Imamoglu SZ (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information and Management, 42(8): 1105-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001   [Google Scholar]
  3. Beatty MJ and Zahn CJ (1990). Are student ratings of communication instructors due to “easy” grading practices?: An analysis of teacher credibility and student‐reported performance levels. Communication Education, 39(4): 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378809   [Google Scholar]
  4. Blackman D and Henderson S (2005). Why learning organisations do not transform. The Learning Organization, 12(1): 42-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510574250   [Google Scholar]
  5. Brandon DP and Hollingshead AB (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6): 633-644. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0069   [Google Scholar]
  6. Burgoyne J (1995). Feeding minds to grow the business. People Management, 1(19): 22-25.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Cardy RL and Selvarajan TT (2006). Competencies: Alternative frameworks for competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 49(3): 235-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2005.09.004   [Google Scholar]
  8. Chinowsky P and Carrillo P (2007). Knowledge management to learning organization connection. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(3): 122-130. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2007)23:3(122)   [Google Scholar]
  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750708   [Google Scholar]
  10. Clegg SR, Kornberger M, and Rhodes C (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization, 12(2): 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051186   [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins CJ and Smith KG (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 544-560. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794671   [Google Scholar]
  12. Cotta D and Salvador F (2020). Exploring the antecedents of organizational resilience practices: A transactive memory systems approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 40(9): 1531-1559. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2019-0827   [Google Scholar]
  13. Cummings J (2003). Knowledge sharing: A review of the literature. OED 29385, The World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, Washington D.C., USA.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Dyer JH and Nobeoka K (2000). Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<345::AID-SMJ96>3.0.CO;2-N   [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis AP (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 576-589. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794674   [Google Scholar]
  17. Faraj S and Sproull L (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12): 1554-1568. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072   [Google Scholar]
  18. Garvin DA, Edmondson AC, and Gino F (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3): 109-116.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Gino F, Argote L, Miron-Spektor E, and Todorova G (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2): 102-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.002   [Google Scholar]
  20. Hardin CD and Higgins ET (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In: Sorrentino RM and Higgins ET (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context: 28–84. Volume 3, Guilford Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Hecker A (2012). Knowledge beyond the individual? Making sense of a notion of collective knowledge in organization theory. Organization Studies, 33(3): 423-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611433995   [Google Scholar]
  22. Hilligoss B and Rieh SY (2008). Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing and Management, 44(4): 1467-1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2007.10.001   [Google Scholar]
  23. Hollingshead AB (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6): 1080-1089. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.1080   [Google Scholar] PMid:11761309
  24. Hollingshead AB and Fraidin SN (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4): 355-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00549-8   [Google Scholar]
  25. Hollingshead AB, Fulk J, and Monge P (2002). Fostering intranet knowledge sharing: An integration of transactive memory and public goods approaches. In: Hinds P and Kiesler S (Eds.), Distributed work: 335–355. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2464.003.0021   [Google Scholar]
  26. Inkpen A (1998). Learning, knowledge acquisition, and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, 16(2): 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00090-X   [Google Scholar]
  27. Jamali D and Sidani Y (2008). Learning organizations: Diagnosis and measurement in a developing country context: The case of Lebanon. The Learning Organization, 15(1): 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470810842466   [Google Scholar]
  28. James CR (2003). Designing learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 32(1): 46-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00137-7   [Google Scholar]
  29. Jarvenpaa SL, Shaw TR, and Staples DS (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3): 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1040.0028   [Google Scholar]
  30. Joo BK and Park S (2010). Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention: The effects of goal orientation, organizational learning culture and developmental feedback. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 31(6): 482-500. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011069999   [Google Scholar]
  31. Joo BK and Ready KJ (2012). Career satisfaction: The influences of proactive personality, performance goal orientation, organizational learning culture, and leader‐member exchange quality. Career Development International, 17(3): 276-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241090   [Google Scholar]
  32. Joo BK, Yang B, and McLean GN (2014). Employee creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, job autonomy, and proactivity. Human Resource Development International, 17(3): 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2014.896126   [Google Scholar]
  33. Kakabadse KN, Kouzmin A, and Kakabadse A (2001). From tacit knowledge to knowledge management: Leveraging invisible assets. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3): 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.120   [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim TY, Bateman TS, Gilbreath B, and Andersson LM (2009). Top management credibility and employee cynicism: A comprehensive model. Human Relations, 62(10): 1435-1458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709340822   [Google Scholar]
  35. Kucharska W (2017). Relationships between trust and collaborative culture in the context of tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 13(4): 61-78. https://doi.org/10.7341/20171344   [Google Scholar]
  36. Larson JR and Christensen C (1993). Groups as problem‐solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1): 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00983.x   [Google Scholar]
  37. Lau PYY, McLean GN, Hsu YC, and Lien BYH (2017). Learning organization, organizational culture, and affective commitment in Malaysia: A person–organization fit theory. Human Resource Development International, 20(2): 159-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1246306   [Google Scholar]
  38. Levin DZ, Cross R, Abrams LC, and Lesser EL (2004). Trust and knowledge sharing: A critical combination. In: Lesser E and Prusak L (Eds.), Creating value with knowledge: Insights from the IBM Institute for business value: 36–41. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195165128.003.0003   [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewis K (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587   [Google Scholar] PMid:12940401
  40. Lewis K (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11): 1519-1533. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0257   [Google Scholar]
  41. Lim T (2010). Relationships among organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and learning organization culture in one Korean private organization. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(3): 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9087-z   [Google Scholar]
  42. Little D and Green DA (2022). Credibility in educational development: Trustworthiness, expertise, and identification. Higher Education Research and Development, 41(3): 804-819. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1871325   [Google Scholar]
  43. Littlepage GE, Hollingshead AB, Drake LR, and Littlepage AM (2008). Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(3): 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.3.223   [Google Scholar]
  44. Malik ME, Danish RQ, and Usman A (2011). Impact of motivation to learn and job attitudes on organizational learning culture in a public service organization of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3): 844-854. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n2p159   [Google Scholar]
  45. Malik P and Garg P (2020). Learning organization and work engagement: The mediating role of employee resilience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(8): 1071-1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1396549   [Google Scholar]
  46. Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, and Gilson L (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3): 410-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061   [Google Scholar]
  47. Mayer RC, Davis JH, and Schoorman FD (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335   [Google Scholar]
  48. McAllister DJ (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 24-59. https://doi.org/10.5465/256727   [Google Scholar]
  49. McNeish J and Mann IJS (2010). Knowledge sharing and trust in organizations. The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1): 18–38.   [Google Scholar]
  50. Moreland RL (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In: Levine JM, Messick DM, and Thompson LL (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: 3-32. Psychology Press, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603227-1   [Google Scholar]
  51. Moreland RL and Myaskovsky L (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2891   [Google Scholar]
  52. Moscovici S (2001). Social representations: Essays in social psychology. New York University Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  53. Nunnally JC (1975). Psychometric theory-25 years ago and now. Educational Researcher, 4(10): 7-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X004010007   [Google Scholar]
  54. Odor HO (2018). A literature review on organizational learning and learning organizations. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 7(1): 1000494.   [Google Scholar]
  55. Park YK, Song JH, Yoon SW, and Kim J (2014). Learning organization and innovative behavior: The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1/2): 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-04-2013-0040   [Google Scholar]
  56. Pearsall MJ, Christian MS, and Ellis AP (2010). Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017593   [Google Scholar] PMid:20085415
  57. Pearsall MJ, Ellis AP, and Stein JH (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1): 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002   [Google Scholar]
  58. Pedler M (1995). A guide to the learning organization. Industrial and Commercial Training, 27(4): 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197859510087587   [Google Scholar]
  59. Peltokorpi V and Hood AC (2019). Communication in theory and research on transactive memory systems: A literature review. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11(4): 644-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12359   [Google Scholar] PMid:30053333
  60. Poleacovschi C and Javernick-Will A (2020). The importance of expertise visibility across organizational boundaries for individual performance. Engineering Management Journal, 32(1): 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2019.1661718   [Google Scholar]
  61. Prahalad CK and Bettis RA (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6): 485-501. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250070602   [Google Scholar]
  62. Prichard JS and Ashleigh MJ (2007). The effects of team-skills training on transactive memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38(6): 696-726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407304923   [Google Scholar]
  63. Rau D (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory: Performance relation in top management teams. Small Group Research, 36(6): 746-771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405281776   [Google Scholar]
  64. Rifkin W and Fulop L (1997). A review and case study on learning organizations. The Learning Organization, 4(4): 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479710170833   [Google Scholar]
  65. Robertson R, Gockel C, and Brauner E (2012). Trust your teammates or bosses? Differential effects of trust on transactive memory, job satisfaction, and performance. Employee Relations, 35(2): 222-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451311287880   [Google Scholar]
  66. Santa M and Nurcan S (2016). Learning organization modelling patterns. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 14: 106-125. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.22   [Google Scholar]
  67. Senge PM (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. 1st Edition, Doubleday Currency, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  68. Sharratt M and Usoro A (2003). Understanding knowledge‑sharing in online communities of practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2): 187-196.   [Google Scholar]
  69. Singh V and Mirzaeifar S (2020). Assessing transactions of distributed knowledge resources in modern construction projects: A transactive memory approach. Automation in Construction, 120: 103386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103386   [Google Scholar]
  70. Smith PA and Flores AA (2014). Principal influence and faculty trust: An analysis of teacher perceptions in middle schools. In: Van Maele D, Forsyth P, and Van Houtte M (Eds.), Trust and school life: 259-282. Springer, Dordrecht, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_12   [Google Scholar]
  71. Swanson E, Kim S, Lee SM, Yang JJ, and Lee YK (2020). The effect of leader competencies on knowledge sharing and job performance: Social capital theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42: 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.11.004   [Google Scholar]
  72. Szulanski G, Cappetta R, and Jensen RJ (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 15(5): 600-613. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0096   [Google Scholar]
  73. Takahashi B and Tandoc EC (2016). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6): 674-690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986   [Google Scholar] PMid:25792288
  74. Tan KS, Chong SC, Lin B, and Eze UC (2009). Internet‐based ICT adoption: Evidence from Malaysian SMEs. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 109(2): 224-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570910930118   [Google Scholar]
  75. Teven JJ and Herring JE (2005). Teacher influence in the classroom: A preliminary investigation of perceived instructor power, credibility, and student satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 22(3): 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810500230685   [Google Scholar]
  76. Thomas K and Allen S (2006). The learning organisation: A meta‐analysis of themes in literature. The Learning Organization, 13(2): 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610645467   [Google Scholar]
  77. Tsai W and Ghoshal S (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4): 464-476. https://doi.org/10.5465/257085   [Google Scholar]
  78. Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy WK (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4): 547-593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547   [Google Scholar]
  79. Van Maele D, Van Houtte M, and Forsyth PB (2014). Introduction: Trust as a matter of equity and excellence in education. In: Van Maele D, Forsyth P, and Van Houtte M (Eds.), Trust and school life: The role of trust for learning, teaching, leading, and bridging: 1-33. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8_1   [Google Scholar]
  80. Wang X and Yang B (2007). The culture of learning organizations in Chinese state-owned and privately-owned enterprises: An empirical study. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 1(2): 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-007-0016-x   [Google Scholar]
  81. Wegner DM (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen B and Goethals GR (Eds.), Theories of group behavior: 185-208. Springer, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4634-3_9   [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilson P (1983). Second-hand knowledge: An inquiry into cognitive authority. Greenwood Press, Westport, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  83. Yang JT (2010). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international tourist hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1): 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.004   [Google Scholar]
  84. Yeung AK, Ulrich DO, Nason SW, and Ginow MAV (1999). Organizational learning capability. Oxford University Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195102048.001.0001   [Google Scholar]