skip to main content
10.1145/2925995.2926002acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskmoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Positive Knowledge Management: Changing Perceptions towards Knowledge Processes in Organizations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Why do so many Knowledge Management projects fail, why are knowledge management activities still perceived as cumbersome and time consuming? In this paper, the solution to overcome the barriers towards knowledge management. By using principles from Positive Psychology and Positive Computing, the concept of Positive Knowledge Management is elaborated. It shows how strategies, processes, measurements and technologies need to be changed. The key issue is to work towards employees' happiness and well-being. Knowledge-related activities need to be perceived positively to change peoples' attitude and emotions. The paper outlines what is necessary to create Positive Knowledge Management in organizations.

References

  1. Sander, T. 2011. Positive computing. In: Biswas-Diener, R. (ed). Positive psychology as social change. Springer, Heidelberg, 309--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Calvo, R.A., and Peters, D. 2014. Positive computing: technology for wellbeing and human potential. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Chumg, H. F., Cooke, L., Fry, J., & Hung, I. H. (2015). Factors affecting knowledge sharing in the virtual organisation: Employees' sense of well-being as a mediating effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 70--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Evangelista, P., Esposito, E., Lauro, V., and Raffa, M. 2010. The adoption of knowledge management systems in small firms. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 33--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Zelaya-Zamora, J., and Senoo, D. 2013. Synthesizing seeming incompatibilities to foster knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 106--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Riege, A. 2005. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Desouza, K.C., Dombrowski, C., Awazu, Y., Baloh, P. Papagari, S., Jha, S., & Kim, J.Y. 2009. Crafting organizational innovation processes, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 6--33Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Tarafdar, M., Gupta, A., and Turel, O. 2015. Special Issue on 'Dark Side of Information Technology Use': An Introduction and a Framework for Research." Information Systems Journal 25 (3), 161--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Pallot, M., Martínez-Carreras, M.A. and Prinz, W. 2010. Collaborative Distance. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6(2), 1--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Noll, J., Beecham, S. and Richardson, I. 2010. Global software development and collaboration: barriers and solutions, ACM Inroads, 1(3), pp. 66--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. McDermott, R., and O'Dell, C. 2001. Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Seligman, M.E., Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive psychology: an introduction. American Psychological Association, 55(1), 5--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Pawlowski, J. M., Eimler, S. C., Jansen, M., Stoffregen, J., Geisler, S., Koch, O., Müller, G., and Handmann, U. 2015. Positive Computing. Business & Information Systems Engineering, Dec. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pirkkalainen, H. and Pawlowski, J. 2013. Global Social Knowledge Management: From Barriers to the Selection of Social Tools, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 3--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Biswas-Diener R (ed) 2011. Positive psychology as social change. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gao, Q, Dai, Y., Fan, Z. and Kang, R. 2010. Understanding factors affecting perceived sociability of Social Software, Computers in Human Behavior 26(6), 1846--1861. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Pirkkalainen, H., & Pawlowski, J. M. 2014. Global social knowledge management--understanding barriers for global workers utilizing social software. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 637--647. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Laitinen, J. A., Pawlowski, J. M., and Senoo, D. 2015. A Study on the Influence of National Culture on Knowledge Sharing. In Knowledge Management in Organizations (pp. 160--175). Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jennex, M.E. and Olfman, L. 2006. A Model of Knowledge Management Success, International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(3), 51--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Maier, R. 2007. Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management, 3rd ed. Springer, Berlin et al. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Botella C, Riva G, Gaggioli A, Wiederhold BK, Alcaniz M, and Baños RM 2012. The present and future of positive technologies. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 15:78--84. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0140Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Faust J 2009. Positive design. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60(9):1887--1894. doi: 10.1002/asi.21130 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Krämer NC, Neubaum G, Eimler SC 2015. A brief history of (social) Cyberspace. In: Hołyst J (ed) Cyberemotions: collective emotions in cyberspace. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Riva G, Banos RM, Botella C, Wiederhold BK, Gaggioli A 2012. Positive technology: using interactive technologies to promote positive functioning. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 15(2):69--77. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0139Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Graesser AC, D'Mello SK, Strain AC 2014. Emotions in advanced learning technologies. In: Pekrun R, Linnenbrink-Garcia L (eds) Handbook of emotions and education. Routledge, London, pp 473--493Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Giffen, D., & Zhivotovskaya, E. 2007. Positive Psychology Toolkit for Coaches, Book proposal, University of Pennsylvania.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., and Biswas-Diener, R. 2010. New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Pavot, W., Diener, E. 2008. The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Cooper CL, Liu Y, Tarba SY 2014. Resilience, HRM practices and impact on organizational performance and employee well-being. Int J Hum Res Manag 25(17): 2466--2471. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2014.926688Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Truss C, Shantz A, Soane E, Alfes K, and Delbridge R 2013. Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. Int J Hum Res Manag 24(14):2657--2669. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.798921Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., and Lindgren, R. 2011. Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research - Design and Methods, 5th ed., Vol. 45. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pawlowski, J., and Bick, M. 2012. The global knowledge management framework: Towards a theory for knowledge management in globally distributed settings. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 92--108.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Maier, R., and Remus, U. 2002. Defining process- oriented knowledge management strategies. Knowledge and process management, 9(2), 103--118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Bose, R. 2004. Knowledge management metrics. Industrial management & data systems, 104(6), 457--468.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. CEN 2004. CEN CWA 14924 European Guide to good Practice in Knowledge Management - Part 1 to 5, Brussels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Rampersad, H.K. 2005b. Personal Balanced Scorecard: The Way to Individual Happiness, Personal Integrity and Organizational Effectiveness, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Remus, U., and Schub, S. 2003. A blueprint for the implementation of process-oriented knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(4), 237--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Seligman, M. E., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., and Linkins, M. 2009. Positive education: Positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford review of education, 35(3), 293--311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., and Keyes, C. L. 2003. Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived, 2, 205--224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Lopez, S. J., and Snyder, C. R. (Eds.) 2009. The Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    KMO '16: Proceedings of the The 11th International Knowledge Management in Organizations Conference on The changing face of Knowledge Management Impacting Society
    July 2016
    339 pages
    ISBN:9781450340649
    DOI:10.1145/2925995

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 25 July 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    KMO '16 Paper Acceptance Rate47of96submissions,49%Overall Acceptance Rate47of96submissions,49%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader