Knowledge Acquisition, Group Reflexivity, and Innovation

Abstract

This study examined the relationships among explicit and tacit knowledge acquisition, group reflexivity, and innovative behaviour in 335 SME workers. In an autonomous learning climate, group reflexivity mediated the relationship between knowledge acquisition and innovative behaviour. In a structured learning climate, tacit knowledge acquisition had a direct effect on innovative behaviour.

Research background

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) account for a large share of employment (82.7% as of 2020). Research on knowledge creation among SME workers is less extensive than research on learning among workers in large enterprises (Nolan & Garavan, 2016).

The knowledge management (KM) literature identifies knowledge integration and knowledge acquisition strategies aligned with organizational climates as factors that contribute to successful innovation (Hansen et al., 1999; López-Nicolás & Meroño-Cerdán, 2011). A codification strategy requires learners to acquire explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge helps learners understand standardized meanings within an organization and identify behaviours to standardize. A personalisation strategy focuses on acquiring tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge helps learners understand contextual meanings and adapt to new environments (Hansen et al., 1999).

This study focuses on learning climates, defined as norms and practices for acquiring relevant knowledge and critically interpreting it for individual purposes. Learning climates encompass structure-oriented and people-oriented approaches that influence knowledge management practices (Ko & Oh, 2020). A structure-oriented approach emphasizes structured, technical learning; a people-oriented approach emphasizes autonomous, open, and social learning. Previous SME research describes a structured learning climate as supporting learners in meeting organizational expectations. An autonomous climate aims to incorporate the outcomes of learner-led learning into organizational behaviour (Billett, 2001; Ellström, 2005; Jones et al., 2013).

Research model and hypotheses

Tacit knowledge acquisition showed larger path coefficients than explicit knowledge acquisition, and the paths differed by type of learning climate

Group reflexivity consists of behaviours through which people gather diverse knowledge and reflect on it critically (Schippers et al., 2007). Innovative behaviour refers to activities in which organizational members develop and implement new ideas to improve their work, groups, and performance (Janssen, 2000).

Hypothesis	Content
H1	Explicit knowledge acquisition positively affects group reflexivity
H2	Tacit knowledge acquisition positively affects group reflexivity
H3	Group reflexivity promotes innovative behaviour and mediates the relationship between knowledge acquisition and innovative behaviour
H4	Explicit knowledge acquisition promotes innovative behaviour
H5	Tacit knowledge acquisition promotes innovative behaviour more than explicit knowledge acquisition
H6a · H6b	Learning climate type moderates the relationships above

Methods

The participants were SME workers in Seoul. The research team combined random selection using the SME Information System with convenience sampling. The team selected 50 of the 736 listed enterprises based on industry and size and asked their human resources managers to participate in the survey. Of these, 39 enterprises agreed, and each selected approximately 10 workers based on position and job responsibilities. The team analysed online survey responses from 335 workers in 39 enterprises.

Category	Distribution
Enterprise size	Small enterprises (fewer than 50 employees) 53.9%, medium enterprises (50–300 employees) 46.1%
Industry	Services 18.6%, distribution and sales 18.6%, manufacturing 15.8%, construction 10.7%, health and welfare 8.8%
Gender and age	Men 65.0% / 40s 43.3%, 20–30s 50.7% (mean age 41.2 years)
Education	University graduates 52.0%, junior college graduates 18.9%, master’s degree holders 11.4%, high school graduates 10.1%
Position	Senior managers 27.4%, middle managers 30.0%, lower-level managers 20.8%, staff 20.8%
Employment type	Regular employees 91.8%

Variable	Scale source	Items
Explicit knowledge acquisition (EKA) · Tacit knowledge acquisition (TKA)	López-Nicolás & Meroño-Cerdán (2011)	4 items each, 5-point scale
Group reflexivity (GRL)	Savelsbergh et al. (2009), Schippers et al. (2007)	6 items (learning, evaluation, and discussion processes)
Innovative behaviour (INVB)	Janssen (2000)	5 items, 5-point frequency scale
Structured learning climate (SLC) · Autonomous learning climate (ALC)	Ko & Oh (2020), Yang et al. (2004), Choo et al. (2007a; 2007b)	4 items each

Respondents whose autonomous learning climate scores exceeded their structured learning climate scores formed one group (n=155). Those whose structured learning climate scores were higher formed the other (n=162). The 18 respondents who rated the two types equally were excluded from the comparative analysis. Mean SLC and ALC scores were 3.278 and 2.761 in the SLC group, and 2.885 and 3.439 in the ALC group. The t-tests showed statistically significant differences between the groups only for SLC (t=6.018, p<.001) and ALC (t=−6.379, p<.001).

Descriptive statistics and validity

Skewness was below 2 and kurtosis was below 7 (Fabrigar et al., 1999). VIF values were below 3 (Hair, 2010).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	M	SD
1. SLC	(.843)						3.025	.818
2. ALC	.626**	(.875)					3.156	.791
3. EKA	.461**	.369**	(.815)				3.272	.694
4. TKA	.462**	.402**	.321**	(.744)			3.369	.747
5. GRL	.638**	.581**	.440**	.528**	(.914)		3.361	.664
6. INVB	.303**	.319**	.295**	.339**	.395**	(.871)	3.128	.818

Values in parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach’s α. N=335, ** p<.01.

The research team conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of 27 items across 6 constructs and removed EKA and TKA items with loadings below .50. Loadings in the measurement model ranged from .673 to .855. Model fit indices were χ²=471.660(df=260, p=.000), TLI=.945, CFI=.952, RMSEA=.051.

Construct	AVE	CR
SLC	.578	.845
ALC	.636	.874
EKA	.581	.846
TKA	.510	.804
GRL	.643	.915
INVB	.577	.872

Results for the overall model

Fit indices for the structural model were χ²=206.569(df=113, p=.000), CFI=.966, TLI=.959, RMSEA=.051. The covariance coefficient between EKA and TKA was .151(p<.001).

Hypothesis	Path	Unstandardized	Standardized	t	Result
H1	EKA → GRL	.298	.302***	4.865	Supported
H2	TKA → GRL	.644	.526***	7.273	Supported
H3	GRL → INVB	.189	.212*	2.346	Supported
H4	EKA → INVB	.140	.159*	2.154	Supported
H5	TKA → INVB	.242	.222*	2.463	Supported

The unstandardized coefficients come from the main text, and the standardized coefficients come from Figure 2. Tacit knowledge acquisition had higher standardized path coefficients than explicit knowledge acquisition for both group reflexivity and innovative behaviour.

Moderating effects of learning climates

Constraining all parameters to be equal across groups produced a significant difference in model fit (Δχ²(5)=12.998, p<.01). Fit indices for the multigroup model were χ²=348.102(df=208, p=.003), CFI=.945, TLI=.937, RMSEA=.046.

Path	SLC(n=162) unstandardized	SLC standardized	ALC(n=155) unstandardized	ALC standardized	Δdf	Δχ²
EKA → GRL	.283**	.282	.313***	.318	1	0.063
TKA → GRL	.629***	.504	.695***	.578	1	0.189
GRL → INVB	−.015	−.018	.544***	.592	1	11.224***
EKA → INVB	.147†	.171	.082	.090	1	0.257
TKA → INVB	.455***	.425	−.106	−.096	1	8.009**
All constraints	—	—	—	—	5	12.998**

The unstandardized and standardized columns follow the labels in the original paper. *** p<.001, ** p<.01, † p<.10.

Differences emerged in the path from GRL to INVB (Δχ²=11.224, p<.001) and the path from TKA to INVB (Δχ²=8.009, p<.01). The researchers reported that group reflexivity fully mediated the relationship between knowledge acquisition and innovative behaviour in an autonomous learning climate.

The researchers decomposed the standardized effects using 2,000 bootstrap samples.

Group	Path	Total effect	Direct effect	Indirect effect
SLC	EKA → INVB	.166	.171†	−.005
SLC	TKA → INVB	.416***	.425*	−.009
ALC	EKA → INVB	.279*	.090	.188**
ALC	TKA → INVB	.246*	−.096	.342***

H6a was partially supported, and H6b was supported.

Discussion

Tacit knowledge acquisition had a greater effect on group reflexivity even in a structured learning climate, where codified knowledge tends to be provided more regularly and systematically. The finding differed from the suggestion that explicit knowledge promotes innovation primarily through reflexivity in structured settings.

The researchers proposed a strategy centred on an autonomous learning climate for enterprises facing strong demands for innovation and prepared to promote high-level reflexivity among members. They proposed a strategy centred on a structured learning climate for stable enterprises facing low internal and external pressures for change.

Limitations

The researchers used self-report instruments to measure perceptions of learning climates, types of knowledge acquisition, group reflexivity, and innovative behaviour. They tested for common method bias and confirmed that a single factor among the 6 factors explained less than 50% of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Because perceptions may vary by respondents’ positions, the researchers suggested multisource surveys for future research.

The researchers reduced the number of measurement items for each construct and modified the items to increase participation. They assessed validity and suggested using a full-length instrument in future research, particularly for group reflexivity (Konradt et al., 2015).

The researchers proposed that future research examine how the strategic effects of autonomous and structured learning climates vary with the degree of external pressure and internal motivation for change (Ardito & Messeni Petruzzelli, 2017; Oh & Kim, 2021).

The theory presented in Nonaka (1994) described organizational knowledge creation as a continuous interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. It explained how knowledge generated by individuals spreads throughout the organization through interpersonal interaction. Knowledge acquisition in this study refers to activities for obtaining knowledge; knowledge conversion in Nonaka’s theory refers to interaction between knowledge types. The higher path coefficients for tacit knowledge acquisition indicate the relevance of acquisition activities rather than the magnitude of conversion.

The account in West (2000) described team reflexivity as the collective review of goals, strategies, processes, and environments. It described constraints on innovation when allocating time for reflection or taking risks is difficult. This study measured group reflexivity through items on learning, evaluation, and discussion processes. The study by Schippers et al. (2015) reported that the relationship between team reflexivity and innovation varied with conditions including high work demands and poor physical environments. The relationship between group reflexivity and innovative behaviour held only in an autonomous learning climate, consistent with research in which team context governs the effect of reflection.

The study by Edmondson (1999) defined psychological safety as a shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks. It examined the relationship between psychological safety and learning behaviour in field teams, including how learning behaviour linked psychological safety to team performance. The study by Janssen (2000) reported a positive relationship between job demands and innovative behaviour when rewards for effort were perceived as fair. The autonomous learning climate in this study refers to an open and social approach to learning. Psychological safety and reward fairness are distinct from this concept.

The review by Lines et al. (2021) synthesized randomized controlled trials and experiments and reported positive average effects of team reflexivity interventions on group performance outcomes and performance behaviours. Effect sizes varied by measurement method and the conditions under which interventions were delivered. Individual reports of group reflexivity in this study represent members’ perceptions of learning, evaluation, and discussion processes. The team-level performance outcomes in those intervention studies differ from these perceptions in both what is measured and the level of analysis.

The study cited Oh & Lee (2020) when proposing communities of practice as a means of integration driven by tacit knowledge. That paper is reviewed in Exploring organizational learning processes in SMEs.

References

Oh, S.-Y., & Lee, J. (2024). Knowledge acquisitions and group reflexivity for innovative behaviours of SME workers: The moderating role of learning climates. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 22(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2022.2113346
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
Lines, R. L. J., Pietsch, S., Crane, M., Ntoumanis, N., Temby, P., Graham, S., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2021). The effectiveness of team reflexivity interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 10(3), 438–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000251
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441210
West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Product development teams (pp. 1–29). JAI Press.