Tacit Knowledge - The Mortar of the Design Process Research Paper

Tacit Knowledge - The Mortar of the Design Process - Research Paper Example Body Tacit knowledge is the kind of knowledge which has been considered relevant in shaping actions relating to real-world goals. This kind of knowledge covers three basic qualities. First, it is procedural; second, it is significant in the achievement of goals which individuals value; and third, it is gained with limited assistance from others (Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000). Knowledge including these elements is considered tacit as it must often be interpreted from actions or statements. The inference must be gained from the individuals who want to establish tacit knowledge in work and school and from the researchers wanting to evaluate these individuals (Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000). In effect, tacit knowledge is usually implied, not explicit. Since tacit knowledge can more or less be measured and because such measured knowledge has been known to shape job performance in various domains and in numerous performance standards, the tacit-knowledge approach must have practical applicati on in the evaluation, selection, and training of leaders (Taylor, 2007). Research implies that tacit knowledge is gained with experience, however individuals may also differ in how they improve from their experiences. Much interest in the handling of knowledge in organizations has directed attention on the management of tacit knowledge, and on how such knowledge can be kept within the firm as a basis for possible competitive gain (Coff, et.al., 2006). The idea of tacit knowledge is generally appealing and is likely something that would be understood as the information which individuals would have in their heads, not information which would be recorded (Koenig, 2003). In most instances, tacit knowledge seems to be the term which encompasses any knowledge which has not been formally written down (Styhre, 2004). However, as noted by other theorists, such simplistic notion of tacit knowledge triggers the expectation that tacit knowledge can easily be transmitted with the sender of the i nformation reflecting and expressing the knowledge. In fact, the primary understanding of tacit knowledge is ambiguous as researchers use the term for various meanings and characterizations. In effect, much confusion and debate is seen over the actual nature of tacit knowledge and whether it can actually be articulated (Tsoukas, 2003). Tacit knowledge for military leaders seems to be a better predictor of leadership effectiveness as compared to verbal prowess or experience (Horvath and Williams, 1994). Experience as evaluated by months on a specific job, manifested no relationship with leadership efficacy. Tacit knowledge for military leaders did not show any relationship to effectiveness, except for Battalion commanders who had better tacit knowledge and who were more efficient in managing subordinates (Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000). Finally, verbal ability had a moderate relationship with leadership effectiveness within platoon and company levels. However, when an evaluation of ver bal ability was assessed based on hierarchical regression, tacit knowledge consistently manifested efficacy beyond verbal ability (Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000). Tacit knowledge therefore supports the fact that it assists in ensuring leadership efficacy and seems to do so beyond the old predictors. Studies on tacit knowledge and leadership sought to understand what leaders knew which was