Crossing Knowledge Boundaries: From Team Learning to Knowledge Teams

Theoretical Background

Research Design

The empirical material presented in this article is drawn from the researcher’s direct involvement in Global Co as both an insider (onsite implementer) and outsider (external researcher). A qualitative methodology was adopted through semi-structured interviewing and direct participation of the researcher as an unobtrusive observer in several knowledge sharing activities. Theoretical induction was derived through key themes that emerged from different sources of data drawn from interviews, unobtrusive observations, existing documents, and archival records (Patton, 2002). Questions about what to look out for in the observations and what to specifically ask in the interviews were preliminarily guided by relevant theoretical perspectives from team learning and knowledge sharing, largely encapsulated in Figure 1.

The theoretical themes cover sensemaking (problem-initiated meaning-making), experience (practical relevance), and change (action as solution). Figure 1 serves as a process map that helps the knowledge facilitator manage the team learning process by using the challenge statement as a knowledge context to interpret the underlying issues as affecting work performance, personal experience as a knowledge resource to identify practical relevance drawing out individual tacit knowledge, and specific action as a knowledge application to resolve the challenge. As such, Figure 1 is not considered a priori theory; rather, it is a knowledge generation and refinement process in practice, within which team learning plays a crucial role in managing knowledge flows, generating explicit and tacit knowledge through reflective questioning and feedback (Marquardt & Yeo, 2012). Although Figure 1 is not an analytic framework that helped with data interpretation, it did guide the researcher in understanding how team learning occurs.

At the point of research, four distinct teams that offered the most meaningful representation of the variety of teams in Global Co were selected: a homogeneous team comprises members from the same business unit within a department, a cross-boundary team comprises members working on an assigned project within the same department but from different business units, an internally heterogeneous team comprises members with whom there is no direct working relationship as they work in different departments, and an externally heterogeneous team comprises members from different organizations but are connected through joint-venture partnerships. The purpose was to explore how team composition might influence knowledge sharing and modify team learning processes.

Research execution

First, the researcher participated as an unobtrusive observer where he paid attention to the language, symbols, and references used in team members’ verbalization which formed the material for him to interpret knowledge sharing from the descriptive, inferential, and evaluative perspective (Montgomery & Duck, 1991). For instance, the researcher described in his field notes the members’ spontaneity or responsiveness to and interpretation of the challenge (descriptive), while looking out for their emotional involvement identifying whether they were excited, frustrated, passive, or neutral about the challenge (inferential). Understanding emotions in knowledge sharing allowed him to infer from their narratives the tensions, constraints, or opportunities that stimulated them to delve deeper in the challenge by drawing on their personal experience. The researcher further identified if there were any direct or indirect and positive or negative contribution to the potential solutions emerging from the activity (evaluative). For instance, a positive contribution would be how a concrete experience could be translated into specific lessons learned and guiding principles to enhance an organizational practice. A negative contribution would be how a past experience might forewarn impending complications and unintended consequences. Either way, the researcher was interested to identify which aspect of a past experience could be contested, elaborated, and modified to generate a collective response that team members could resonate with and from which specific solutions could be proposed. As each activity was also video-recorded, the researcher depended on the footage as triangulation material to analyze the team dynamics in relation to learning.

The main difference between the real-time unobtrusive observation and video analysis is that the latter allowed the researcher to watch the interaction in its entirety outside the boundaries of participation. He was able to examine the interactional dynamics through the verbal and nonverbal expressions from a different angle although some of the expressions were not completely visible or audible due to the positioning of the camera and the noise interference resulting from the recording. Applying Goodwin’s (2013) approaches, the researcher was able to further identify other semiotic fields of interests such as level of eye contact, facial expressions, body movement and position, voice inflection, and the participants’ response to material objects such as the slides, notepads, flipcharts, and even their own wrist watches and mobile phones. For instance, frequent gazes at the slide to see the challenge statement could have provided the participants reflective moments to think about the issues in deeper ways. Communicating with the flipcharts with recorded key ideas could help the participants make deeper sense of the issues and connect the dots in different ways. Constantly watching at their watches or mobile phones could signal their level (or lack) of interest in the topic, knowledge shared, and people they were interacting with. All these nonverbal expressions helped the researcher interpret their attitude and emotional response to the challenge, each other’s stories, and their interest in generating plausible solutions.

Second, the researcher interviewed five members in each team based on their individual learning experience in team settings. The number represents about half the team size which could range from eight to 12 members. The interviewees were selected randomly, but the researcher was mindful of ensuring gender balance and a variety of academic backgrounds, age groups, years of service, and levels of seniority. The purpose was to ensure that views and experiences captured were varied, representing a cross-section of the employee profile in Global Co. Interviews were scheduled a week after the knowledge sharing activity when the researcher’s mind was still fresh of what he had observed. To gain a better understanding of how team learning had made an impact on the workplace, he went outside the four teams to informally interview random colleagues of the five members in each team. The researcher simply approached anyone he came across in different offices and a constructed spontaneous conversation with each of them. The aim was to determine if there was any knowledge spillover to individuals outside each team and, more importantly, if the wider community in the organization benefited from knowledge sharing.

The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner with the help of an interview guide which contained seven initial questions developed from the different stages of the knowledge sharing process (Figure 1). To add another dimension to the research, the following questions based on the relevant literature were developed:

What are the trajectories of participation of each team during knowledge sharing?

What are the learning dynamics that are influenced by these trajectories?

What is the flipping point at which team members cross knowledge boundaries?

How does team learning develop knowledge teams?

The additional questions led to the development of probes through keywords and key phrases to help frame filler questions. The interviews largely focused on how a work challenge widened or constricted learning, how the different interpretations of the challenge helped widen knowledge search based on past solutions, how individual stories triggered deeper reflections about what was known or not known about the challenge to identify knowledge gaps, and how converging on shared solutions or actions led to wider knowledge resources through the bridging of ideas that integrated both tacit and explicit knowledge. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 min, and was audio-recorded for subsequent transcription. Internal documents, such as minutes and progress reports, were also used to make better sense of the team dynamics such as learning barriers and outcomes. A summary of the empirical material can be found in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Empirical Material.

Data source	Description
Material to construct the vignettes	Participation in a knowledge sharing activity of each team Meeting observations of each team to learn more about their follow-up action design activities Semi-structured interviews with the facilitator and four random members of each team, coded as A1–A5, B1–B5, C1–C5, and D1–D5 Informal conversations with three random colleagues of these members to gather views about knowledge sharing and its effect on the organization
Additional material used for this study	Informal short conversations with supervisors of these four teams to gain a broader perspective of the significance of knowledge sharing process Archival records, for example, flipchart notes, meeting minutes, and other forms of updates, for example, emails and reports

Note. Each team represents a distinct team type: homogeneous (Team A), cross-boundary (Team B), internally heterogeneous (Team C), and externally heterogeneous (Team D).

Analytic process

The analytic process was iterative in nature as the researcher reflected on and made sense of the field notes that surfaced in various forms, such as diagrams, conceptual schemas, keywords, key phrases, video recording, and flipchart notes (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The interview transcripts were coded separately by the researcher and one other coworker at Global Co, who was involved in the direct implementation of the knowledge sharing process. The codes were guided by the keywords gleaned from Figure 1 and theoretical themes from the literature. The codes were then shared between the researcher and independent coder to determine areas of convergence and divergence. Where there were new clusters of code, they would engage in an in-depth discussion to learn more about the richness of the data. Vivo terms or phrases used by the informants were also employed, giving rise to first-order categories according to Miles and Huberman’s (1984) categorization and thematic-identification techniques. The methodology of Gioia et al. (2012) was further used to develop the first- and second-level coding, which helped the researcher gain clarity in the overall data (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Data structure.

In achieving theoretical saturation, words and phrases used by the informants were repeatedly matched and the first-order categories were collated to ensure that there were no deviances and further distinct patterns that emerged from the coding (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Linkages of categories were subsequently identified leading to second-order themes. These themes offer theoretical relevance but mainly researcher-induced concepts that were formulated at an abstract level according to distinct experiences of the informants. The second-order themes ultimately helped reduce the data into aggregate dimensions that offered insight into the four supporting research questions. The data structure (Figure 2) emerging from the first- and second-order themes served as a “forced ‘stepping-up’ in abstractness” providing the “foundation for balancing the deep embeddedness of the informant’s view in living the phenomenon with the necessary ‘30,000-ft’. view often required to draw forth the theoretical insights” (Gioia et al., 2012, p. 21).

Vignette 1: Beyond the Boundaries of Templates

Team Alpha was a homogeneous team as all 10 members shared a similar professional identity working in the same organizational function of Management Trainers. They met to discuss a pedagogical tool, represented by a template in the form of a worksheet commonly used in classroom activities. The challenge was the inconsistent use of templates as a tool to help participants organize their thoughts and plan their ideas. The word template holds different meanings for different individuals influencing the manner in which it is used and exploited in training workshops. Its use is largely an extension of the trainers’ personal value placed on the choice of tools or resources deployed in meeting particular workshop objectives. Team Alpha’s response to template after an initial team learning activity changed from one of tool to frame ideas and content to one of resource to “help people think out of the box” (A1) rather than “boxing them in” (A3). Drawing on the direct professional training experience of team members in the use of template allowed common assumptions of training material to be challenged and reinterpreted. Because the team members were familiar with each other’s professional practice, questioning the obvious led to disruption of the team members’ familiarity with a common learning object (template), which changed their participation trajectory.

Throughout the knowledge sharing process, the team members projected a personal identification of their version of the use of template based on its perceived objectives and meaningfulness in training. Template, therefore, became an interpretive device from which a deeper level of conversation was generated and through which a different level of trust surfaced, as reflected in the following quote:

Templates could bind or build one’s identity. It could be a means to an end [. . .] by offering a quick-fix solution for the participants to focus or narrow down on their ideas, or an end to a means [. . .] where they (participants) can define for themselves how they’d want the templates to speak to them. It could just be a box or a door to some possibility. (A2)

By sharing personal anecdotes of the use of template, the team members also shaped the trajectory of their own learning by helping establish the believability of the experiences shared in such a way that “I must give others the benefit of [the] doubt about their choice of how a template should be used in training. . . . We should trust each other’s professional insight!” (A5) Knowledge sharing in this context saw boundary objects like templates as a sensegiving mechanism for the team members to “see beyond the boundaries of a box” (A4). Personal experiences expressed in narratives or stories served as social discourses to enable people to “box in and box out of reality” (A1). The trajectory of weaving in and out of individual experiences transcends learning and motivates the team members to consider “training rooms as templates for refining our practice as trainers” (A3). Both personalizing (conceptualized for specific use) and depersonalizing the use of templates (objectified for individual application) offered the scope for experimentation in the members’ respective “training laboratories” (A1).

The dynamics of knowledge sharing captured the attention of many other employees who also wanted to be part of the learning community. Team Alpha became the connecting tissue for developing other knowledge teams, where like-minded professionals would gather formally or informally to “talk about our professional headaches (challenges)” (A1). In tandem, they also learned more about the symptoms or panacea for enhancing their professional practice, increasing team learning capacity.

Vignette 2: Unstitching the Gaps That Crack Through Work Processes

Team Beta was a cross-boundary team represented by members from the same department but different business units. The team met to discuss a specific Business Excellence (BE) program the organization had adopted. BE was a process improvement program governed by an organizational change framework that sought to identify organizational best practices and improvement opportunities to increase organizational performance. A requirement of BE was the identification of gaps in work processes within the department, an area employees shied away from discussing due to political and cultural reasons.

Introducing a more structured approach to collaboration through knowledge sharing helped Team Beta to identify work challenges about which the members were concerned. Similar to the use of templates seen in the first vignette, the BE framework was also perceived as an interpretive device to enable them to question their assumptions about work processes and frame their expectations of the scope of learning. Trying to make sense of process and performance gaps in the context of knowledge sharing rather than task execution changed the trajectory of learning to a large extent. The team members adopted a longer term approach to addressing critical gaps rather than using quick fixes to treat them.

Interpretations of the word “gap” were varied and these provided the discourse for sensemaking by the team members. Sharing specific experience about gap identification and resolution led to the members opening themselves up to feedback and reflection which resulted in potential collaboration for joint actions. Opening up the discussion of “gaps” helped each member to view “some other black holes from your own black box” (B1), creating the opportunity for understanding “possible data that might explain those [black] holes . . . and see if there’s a pattern that could give us some ideas to find the right solutions.” (B4) Follow-up interviews helped me gain further insight into how “discussion about gaps could turn into actual gap detection on [the] actual ground” (B2) and how “gaps drive conversations about change and intervention” (B3), as reinforced by an informant:

We later developed a joint strategy to close some critical gaps like [the] lack of open communication and lack of clearly-defined roles and responsibilities for some grey areas of our tasks. . . . We found some lessons learned from our own interventions [which] helped us to have more conversations about tackling [the] current and any new gaps. (B1)

Understanding Team Beta’s vision further, I found examples of spillover learning to other individuals in the members’ respective business units. The quest for “exterminating [the] gaps” (B2) became so strong that they developed their own network of learning to both share knowledge and fulfill the BE requirements, which involved identifying problem areas, implementing a process of improvement, and documenting performance reviews and outcomes. The multidimensional experience contributed by all team members formed the knowledge base for cross-boundary learning, which subsequently increased the department’s capacity for intraorganizational learning. This is a process of knowledge exchange between business units which results in a more dynamic and spontaneous learning in an organization.

Vignette 3: Bridging the Communication Divide of Young and Senior Professionals

Team Charlie was an internally heterogeneous team comprising members of different age groups, organizational hierarchies, and professional identities. The team learning activity was focused on the communication challenges between young professionals (age 25–35) and senior professionals (age 45–60) in the organization due to their marked differences in their worldviews and experiences. The issue was deemed complex and urgent in a time when Global Co was focusing on building a young professional workforce which inadvertently neglected a critical population, the senior professionals. The team built on a pressing concern in Global Co by discussing “a sensitive issue [involving] the divide between two distinct groups of employees” (C4). The fact that the team members did not have any direct working relationship with each other provided them the psychological safety to share their perspectives and stories spontaneously and openly. This opened up the possibility that each “slice” of experience became an opportunity to help others make sense of their attitudes and behaviors about their work, as exemplified in the following quote:

I find it hard to talk sense to this group (young professionals) as they don’t listen [to others]. They ask questions rather than listen, and say what’s on their mind [. . .] often abruptly. Perhaps we (senior professionals) could follow their rhythm by engaging in their questions. They are more likely to respond to your questions than listen to you talk. (C1)

Stories built around a common thread of interests created the space for the team to engage in feedback loops by offering and receiving feedback, giving them the basis for further reflection. Being part of the narrative construction and interpretation helped them forge team membership. A member commented, “We felt we knew each other for a quite a while despite our age differences.” (C2). However, the exchange also encouraged personal values and perspectives to emerge, and it was the interaction of values and perspectives that changed the trajectory of participation to a much deeper level. The in-depth participation further increased the potential of the team to explore their learning capacity as they began to minimize “speaking in buzzwords or big terms . . . to impress others” (C5) typical of young professionals. Instead, the collective construction of narratives between the young and senior professionals produced a new social discourse that encouraged “people to jump in and connect with one another . . . by clarifying our doubts and gathering different perspectives like a growing community” (C1).

Through the knowledge sharing activity, the team recognized that the cross-generational communication topic would continue “to be part of the conversations even when we return back to our offices” (C3). The potential for continued conversations beyond the boundaries of the original team would allow knowledge to grow and take greater shape as the members were likely to “import the [knowledge sharing] structure to our home departments to get people to start sharing [their] experience and ideas in a purposeful way” (C2). To some extent, as agents of change, these individuals could bring the “slice” of experience back to their workplaces and replicate the experience with their colleagues around them. With such interest, the spillover effects would ultimately develop organizational learning capacity through multiple knowledge teams. This process promotes the learning of individuals and teams based on shared organizational objectives.

Vignette 4: Learning From Cross-Organizational Best Practices

Team Delta was an externally heterogeneous team involving representatives of Global Co’s joint-venture partners. The team met to discuss an important organizational challenge of building leadership capacity that led to the sharing of strategies that worked and those that failed. In other words, the team was eager to learn from each other the best practices and pitfalls of leadership development. At the start, the team demonstrated a more macro perspective of addressing the challenge as the members adopted an organizational persona, a voice that was concealed behind the image of the organization they each represented. Simply put, they regarded themselves as organizations rather than individuals with distinct viewpoints. An informant confessed, “I think most of us were hiding from our personal voice because we didn’t know where the conversation was going and furthermore we were not sure of each other” (D1). Such concerns initially affected the dynamics of knowledge exchange and knowledge flows. However, as the team members became more familiar with each other through the initial conversations, they were more engaged with the stories of others. Subsequently, they learned to project an “expert” perspective of the ensuing issues individually. Further interest in connecting with one another led to “digging into industry best practices and winning formulas, something we wanted to learn from each other’s companies” (D2). The possibility of best practice adoption by each organization created the space for widening organizational knowledge exchange.

Convergence on industry best practices could subsequently motivate some of the team members to implement these practices in their own organizations. According to an informant, “It’s a case of replicating tried-and-tested best practices in a different context . . . which did work when I experimented an industry best practice in my company I learned from others” (D5). Still, the session started off with the members projecting a highly professional identity trying to cover up their own insecurity and dressing up their talk. Some were intentionally vague about their internal best practices citing reasons that “it’s actually a very complicated training system . . . which needed a lot of tweaking before it was rolled out company-wide” (D4). Statements like this signal a lack of trust between the members for fear of others knowing too much about each company’s trade secrets. As such, most members started putting on a consultant persona and trying to advise rather than share specific information. At this stage, the trajectory of participation was one of awkwardness and a lack of genuine connection, where individual members started resorting to knowledge dressage to embellish their reluctance to reveal their organization’s best practices. Tactics in knowledge dressage involved using high-sounding terms and abstractions like acronyms or organizational references to confound others.

Deep questioning and feedback seeking from some members started shifting the trajectory of learning to another level. Responses like “the initiative sounds rather interesting . . . would you care to elaborate on the emerging leader program in your company?” (A2) and “I was wondering how you (the team) would identify the types of leadership behaviors that could jeopardize your succession planning?” (C4) disrupted the initial pretentiousness of the discussion, taking it to a more personal level. For instance, expressions like “I personally think . . .,” “my take on this . . .,” “in my opinion . . .,” and “my personal bias . . .” transformed the distant organizational persona to one of a more relationally intimate individual persona. The change in the participation trajectory shaped the overall discourse to the extent that it reinforced the intent of knowledge sharing from such a diverse team. The juxtaposition of the organizational and individual persona also added an interesting dimension to the overall knowledge shared, which became more customized as each member walked away with some specific knowledge that could apply to their organizations. The team learning dynamics encouraged both an outside-in (organizational persona) and inside-out (individual persona) response to the challenge at hand. These dynamics could ultimately promote interorganizational learning as multiple knowledge teams intersect to increase the knowledge base in organizations. This process promotes the learning of different organizations as they build knowledge from one another to gain greater competitive advantage.

Trajectories of Participation in Knowledge Sharing

Insufficient attention has been paid to facilitator-led knowledge sharing processes as contributing to team learning (Heizmann, 2011; Vashdi et al., 2013). The critical role of knowledge facilitators is threefold. First, they seek to construct a spontaneous and coherent narrative of a team’s cumulative experience through knowledge bridging. Here is an example of how a facilitator in Global Co tried to make sense of some common factors from two rather different contexts of error:

[T]he failure of Sara’s attempt in project X speaks of quite similar reasons in Brian’s near-missed experience in his Y operations . . . I can see a possible deviation from corporate protocols . . . and partially delayed decisions unendorsed by your stakeholders or sponsors that led to unfulfilled performance objectives in each case. (D5)

Second, the knowledge facilitators contested alternative scenarios through active feedback, sharing the strategic power of feedback giving to other team members, which ultimately promotes dynamic feedback loops within the team, as reinforced in the following quote:

Andy implemented a rigorous incentive scheme to reduce [employee] absenteeism, but how did you measure its success? . . . Mona, you did some similar work in your department. . . . What would you say about about Andy’s approach? For the rest, jump in if you have a question or specific experience to share? (B1)

Third, they identified knowledge domains and types of resources for knowledge translation into practical outcomes, as implied by a facilitator:

The lessons learned here can help us to diversify our search for specific best practices that can address this challenge . . . some of the common issues revolve around streamlining of work processes, communication of expectations, and lack of capacity for technical support. . . . You need to ask the right questions . . . check that report . . . Department X has the technical expertise; you need to know who to ask, Cindy. (A4)

Focusing on the trajectory of participation in knowledge sharing reveals how individuals make sense of, assimilate, and engage in social norms, behaviors, and values in team contexts (Handley et al., 2007; Tasselli, 2015). Through participation, the team members injected a personal history based on the narratives they constructed during the activity. In doing so, they projected an identity either as insiders (similar professional background found in homogeneous teams) or outsiders (dissimilar professional background found in cross-boundary or heterogeneous teams; Brown & Duguid, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Projected identity and specific identification with the team determines the trajectory of participation to the extent that an insider relationship would facilitate a deeper grasp of the context as influencing knowledge coproduction seen in Team Alpha (homogeneity). Paradoxically, familiarity of individual personality and context in homogeneous teams could lead to taken-for-granted assumptions and values where participation might be affected by the lack of critical reflection. On the other hand, teams without a direct working relationship such as Teams Charlie and Delta (heterogeneity) had to first feel comfortable with their initial disengagement given their stranger relationship before modifying their identity from an outsider (that of a consultant or organizational persona) to an insider (that of a team member with shared interests). Cross-boundary teams such as Team Beta appeared to assume a dual insider–outsider role as members juxtaposed between zooming in and out as they modify their identification according to the knowledge and relational contexts of familiarity and unfamiliarity.

As an implication for team learning, the trajectory of participation is shaped by the way the team members learn about their knowing based on who they are, the knowledge they own, and the value they hold toward the learning of others (Wenger, 1998). The more they feel comfortable with their identity, the better they are at co-constructing social discourses by helping each other make sense of their narratives. From the learning perspective, participation involves the cognition (head) and affect (heart), giving meaning to behaviors and relationships (Handley et al., 2007). As such, knowledge sharing is a meaningful process in Global Co as it seeks to build social networks of learning.

Emotional response to knowledge sharing was discovered to usually emerge during interactional dynamics as team membership is not always equal, where teams typically comprise members with different levels of seniority. The aim is to draw on a variety of experiences and hierarchical lenses in addressing commonly held organizational issues. In this study, some members could be intimidated by the experience of others and hence demonstrated unnecessary emotional responses such as fear, anxiety, and even embarrassment during the learning process. Such responses are often triggered by power distance as some members felt awkward to challenge the experience or perspective of someone to whom they report to at work or whose positional power is overbearing. The emotional burden placed on individuals could potentially restrain their freedom to share what truly matters to them, which subsequently affects their orientation to learn in team settings (Vince, 2001). This is when the facilitator’s role becomes of importance to setting the expectations of the activity by redirecting team members’ attention to the challenge statement at hand (what) and the unique individual experiences (how) rather than the people themselves (who).

The facilitator needs to be able to discern the level of emotional burden experienced by each team member and interjects with feedback or probes to redirect the tension into positive energy in the knowledge sharing process. For instance, when a facilitator sensed a tension building up in individuals who were almost petrified to say anything genuine, he or she might use reinforcement techniques by interjecting with “you sound like you have a deeper story that is really interesting . . . tell us more about what happened.” (C5) Often times, when individuals feel that someone else is interested in their story, they are more likely to feel a renewed connection to their confidence that allows them to be more spontaneous in their sharing. Illeris (2003) terms this as maintaining mental balance where individuals are aware of their emotional response, yet use it to their advantage to reengage in the learning content, which in this case is the work challenge the team is trying to make sense and get around of.

Learning Dynamics as Influenced by the Trajectories of Participation

Social learning theory posits that individuals learn by observation through the actions and behaviors of their counterparts (Bandura, 1986). The trajectory of participation as insiders or outsiders seen in the four teams allows team members to apply the contours of behavioral modification to the way they learn. According to Ibarra (1999), learning occurs when individuals reposition their identity and behavior or action which in turn enables them to see things from different angles. For instance, when members of Team Delta began to relate to each other at an individual level, they were better able to ground their perspectives on actual practice through personal experience. The trajectory of learning in this case generated double feedback loops through collective sensemaking of work issues which the team deemed critical and urgent.

Exploration of behavioral alternatives could also influence the way in which knowledge is acquired, interpreted, and shared (Schippers et al., 2014). In this respect, knowledge functions as an empirical construct motivating individuals to acquire, test, and replicate it through concrete actions (Alvesson, 2004). Translating knowledge to action successfully depends on the extent to which knowledge is personalized. Team Alpha is an example of knowledge personalization based on individually held schemas where knowledge carries specific meanings to individuals and increases the likelihood of novel action. In the case of Team Delta, knowledge personalization occurred much later when the trajectory of learning shifted from an organizational persona to an individual persona (Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002).

At the outset, Teams Charlie and Delta exhibited a detached identity due to unfamiliar relationships in the team. This affected their learning trajectory as members assumed an organizational persona and ended up projecting expert or domain-specific knowledge to others, affecting the level of interactional synergy. Adopting a persona which conflicted with their individual identity only led to knowledge dressage, where team members would cover up for their lack of knowledge with high-sounding vocabulary or abstraction (Orbon & Dawson, 2013). When this happened, the team members appeared more confused than being impressed. Interestingly, when the teams moved between the insider–outsider personas, they coproduced a synergy in knowledge analysis where organizational experiences (explicit knowledge) became the material for individual experiences (tacit knowledge) to take shape (Hargadon & Fanelli, 2002). In other words, when the team members depersonalized knowledge, they used experiences of their organizations to help others personalize their own knowledge based on individual experiences. For instance, some members of Team Delta would depersonalize knowledge by using certain flagship leadership programs as reference points to jumpstart a dynamic exchange of a more personal knowledge as they shared about individual learning experiences in these programs. This dynamic allowed different personas to be intertwined to create different ripple effects of learning where the team members would come away with specific knowledge that could be utilized in another context.

Flipping Point at Which Teams Cross Knowledge Boundaries

The transitional process between learning and action was determined through the continuities and discontinuities of learning during the knowledge sharing process. The intersection between the various accounts of experience gave rise to knowledge interpretation and application determining the knowledge boundaries that could be merged or demarcated, signifying at which point learning intensified and halted, respectively. Role identity as driven by insider and outsider, membership and non-membership, as well as inclusion and exclusion contributed to the level of participation leading to knowledge integration or separation (Wenger, 1998). Productive tensions and disruptions arising from social expectations, norms, rules, and protocols also affected knowledge transitions (Carlile, 2004; Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018). The flipping point—the critical point at which knowledge was integrated or separated—became noticeable when such tensions generated productive feedback and reflections serving as stimuli for further action or knowledge experimentation.

Understanding the trajectory of participation and learning during knowledge sharing helped Global Co team members in the sensemaking of what was going on in the knowledge exchange, sense-reading of which knowledge accounts could be expanded or abandoned, and sensegiving where knowledge could be taken into broader contexts for further action (Orbon & Dawson, 2013). In the process, the team members deployed interpretive schemes, such as generating plausible scenarios and raising questions about the application of knowledge in these scenarios, to frame the context and purpose of knowledge sharing and team learning, which in turn led to new solutions to address a specific organizational challenge (Bechky, 2003). For instance, Team Alpha’s use of templates served as interpretive schemes in training or classroom activities to jolt participants’ thinking which subsequently enhanced learning. Such schemes function as symbols of application embodying several interacting mental models (Wenger, 1998). In other words, an interpretive scheme serves as a point of reference for the team members to draw on their individual mental models to shape their trajectory of learning and participation. In another example, Team Beta used the BE framework as an interpretive scheme and a lens which helped the members identify various performance gaps. Such schemes, therefore, served as sensemaking cues for the members to identify with the different knowledge boundaries and their intersections based on individual accounts of experiences (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).

Across all teams, pressing work problems framed as challenge statements provided a common language and focal point for knowledge sharing and team learning to take shape. Interpretation of the challenge statement and coproduction of the narratives based on individual experiences further led to the team members’ “subjective and intersubjective understanding of them (work issues) [which] mutually constitute both the world (organization) and its experience of it” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 51). At the intersection of knowledge boundaries, the members further used their backgrounds, skills, and intellect as an extension of their provisional selves to increase their confidence as knowledge contributors (Ibarra, 1999). The team members were capable of developing and modifying their identities when managing different knowledge boundaries by adopting appropriate personas as reinforcers, analyzers, problem solvers, devil advocators, or advisors. The transition between knowledge boundaries in team learning is facilitated through a relational discourse which was interplayed by language, roles, and personas, giving rise to a more nuanced level of reflective learning (Pyrko et al., 2017).

From Team Learning to Knowledge Teams

The intersection of knowledge boundaries led to fundamental distinctions between how knowledge was interpreted and applied in Global Co (Wang & Noe, 2010). The former refers to the meaning that team members infer from of specific experiences as related to particular sources of knowledge, whereas the latter refers to how various interpretations of knowledge would play out in different circumstances (Wenger, 1998). The conceptual relationship of team learning and knowledge sharing is further reinforced in the modification of individual personas as the negotiation of meaning and identity in knowledge interpretation and application (Handley et al., 2007). This relationship further points to the importance of understanding the trajectory of participation and learning as characteristics of knowledge teams.

Knowledge teams “cannot be seen in isolation . . . or understood independently in other practices” (Wenger, 1998, p. 103). Findings of this research suggest that knowledge teams are proactive in identifying pressing issues and seeking opportunity for change to improve their work and environment. They also translate individual experience into cumulative knowledge resources through proactive inquiry and feedback, building team learning capacity (Argote et al., 2004). More importantly, knowledge teams develop the courage to challenge status quo and seek knowledge resources through existing documentation (explicit knowledge) and individual experiences (tacit knowledge), which will facilitate knowledge bridging (cumulative experience) and application, leading to specific change in the work context (Nicolini et al., 2003).

The data further suggest that the various teams involved in knowledge sharing have led to spillover effects to other social constituents forming different configurations of knowledge teams through reciprocal relationships. This is when knowledge learned in one team is now spilled over to other individuals or teams expanding knowledge boundaries in leaps and bounds within and beyond Global Co. Together, these teams continue with the expansion of knowledge repertoires generated through narratives (accounts of experiences) and interpretive schemes (objects and subjects of experiences; Contu, 2014; Lave & Wenger, 1991). By examining the construction of identity through the trajectories of participation and learning, a deeper understanding of the nexus of practices residing at the intersections of knowledge boundaries could be determined (Nicolini, 2013).

The study offers several implications for practice in developing knowledge teams. In particular, it suggests that teams in Global Co exhibit the characteristics of knowledge teams by developing not only self-sustaining mechanisms but also team learning capacity. First, Figure 3 illustrates a homogeneous team functioning as a knowledge team sustained through shared interests in addressing urgent, complex work challenges. Such teams learn by the challenging of assumptions and sensemaking of contexts and boundaries through reflection and adaptation, giving rise to team reflexivity (Gerpott et al., 2019). Reflexivity implies a three-way relationship between learning, reflection, and action. More specifically, teams that are reflexive learn from both failures and successes to craft new actions to improve existing and future practice increasing team learning capacity (Schippers et al., 2014).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Homogeneous teams and team learning.

Second, Figure 4 illustrates a cross-boundary team demonstrating the capacity for expanding knowledge teams through the members’ social networks. The team consists of members from various departments where the potential for spillovers of knowledge to other individuals within their own context of practice would be rather high. Reciprocal relationships between knowledge teams developed within or between departments could increase intraorganizational learning capacity, where learning occurs through the experience of others (Argote & Ophir, 2002). In other words, the transfer of knowledge from one team is influenced by the experience of another, creating a larger network of learning in the organization. Processes related to intraorganizational learning involve the creation, retention, and transfer of knowledge. The mutual relationships between knowledge teams suggest that as interaction between individuals and teams increases, the potential for knowledge expansion through co-creation would increase too. Experiences captured in each team could help bridge knowledge gaps through intraorganizational networks to enhance existing and future work practice (Argote & Ophir, 2002; Tasselli, 2015).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Cross-boundary teams and intraorganizational learning.

Third, Figure 5 presents a scenario where the network of learning could potentially be expanded beyond existing teams (e.g., Teams 1–4), permeating through the fabric of the organization. Unlike cross-boundary teams, internally heterogeneous teams are not connected within boundaries of professional familiarity as team members do not work on shared projects on a regular basis. Hence, the power distance of team members is less pronounced than those in cross-boundary teams where there are informal, internal hierarchies as expected in project teams. In view of the absence of any expected hierarchy, internally heterogeneous teams are more open to engaging in conversations that allow professional identities to shape the trajectory of their participation and learning as team members are not bound by common work-related objectives and obligations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Internally heterogeneous teams and organizational learning.

In the case of Team Charlie, members with technical backgrounds such as engineering and finance responded with more precise and deterministic inquiry than those with nontechnical backgrounds. The response of those with a human resources and public relations background tended to be guided by subtle abstraction and explicit references to situational conditions when discussing pressing work issues. Team heterogeneity in this context led to the social construction of knowledge arising from professional roles, expectations, and practices, bringing to the fore differences in expertise, ownership, recognition, and legitimacy (Contu, 2014). Dynamics in knowledge sharing and team learning built on strong interests in professional work could enhance organizational learning capacity as teams grow in connections, developing common goals for knowledge integration and application (Lowik et al., 2016).

Fourth, Figure 6 suggests an interorganizational network, where learning is built on shared interests in industry best practices. As seen in Team Delta, an externally heterogeneous composition offers unpredictable interactional dynamics subject to the team members’ negotiation of their individual and professional identities and personas. Unlike other compositions, externally heterogeneous teams remain mysterious in their approach to knowledge sharing. Until team members realize that knowledge dressage holds no value for learning, they will continue to flounder in a language of verbose and abstraction. When they realize that a more honest and deeper conversation is necessary for gaining insight into industry best practices, they will begin to see value in interorganizational knowledge sharing.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Externally heterogeneous teams an interorganizational learning.

Such collaborative knowledge sharing builds interorganizational learning capacity, where individual organizations perceive themselves as learning partners gleaning from the best of their peers (Ingram & Baum, 2001). This is the case for Team Delta as the members were representatives of Global Co’s joint-venture partners. Although the possibility of undermining the value of knowledge sharing through knowledge dressage was recognized, the members of Team Delta were able to appropriate their collaborative learning efforts by removing their organizational personas and adopting their individual personas to allow personal voices to emerge. In doing so, they were able to generate professional insight through reflective feedback and critical analysis of shared work challenges (Ingram & Baum, 2001). Such dynamics encourage teams to develop within and across organizations to construct a common language for wider interorganizational learning.