Com base em uma perspetiva desenvolvimental, este estudo analisou em que medida os diferentes estágios de desenvolvimento de um grupo diferem no que diz respeito à utilização dos processos de gestão do conhecimento. O estudo incidiu em uma amostra composta por 211 equipes pertencentes a uma organização militar portuguesa. Para testar as hipóteses formuladas, foi utilizada a análise multivariada da variância. Os resultados revelaram que grupos mais maduros e cooperativos (fase Reestruturação/Realização) aplicam em maior grau os processos de gestão do conhecimento, enquanto grupos em que existe elevada competição intragrupo e em que os membros procuram “ganhar poder” entre si (fase Reenquadramento), aplicam esses processos em menor grau.

Palavras chave:
gestão do conhecimento nas equipes; desenvolvimento grupal; trabalho em equipes

Autoria

Ana Pinto ¹1Endereço para correspondência: Universidade de Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra, Portugal. CEP: 3000-15. E-mail: luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

Paulo Renato Lourenço

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

Lisete Mónico

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

1Endereço para correspondência: Universidade de Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra, Portugal. CEP: 3000-15. E-mail: luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Universidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - PortugalUniversidade de CoimbraPortugalPortugalUniversidade de Coimbra IPCDHS/FPCEUC - Portugal

Figuras | Tabelas

Figuras (1)
Tabelas (3)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Average scores of the KMT scale processes depending on the three phases of group development

Thumbnail

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix between GDS and KTM [N = 211 teams]

Thumbnail

Table 2
Average Scores and Standard Deviations of the KMT Scale Processes in Accordance with the Three Phases of Group Development: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (F Ratios) and Effect Size (η2)

Thumbnail

Table 3
Differences Between the Averages and Standard Errors (in brackets) of the KMT Scale and Constituent Processes Depending on the Phases of Group Development: Fisher’s LSD Multiple Comparison Tests

Figure 1 Average scores of the KMT scale processes depending on the three phases of group development

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix between GDS and KTM [N = 211 teams]

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Structuring (1)	4.28	.45	1.00	.31^ p < .01	.15^* * p < .05;	.22^ p < .01	.22^ p < .01	.16^* * p < .05;	.18^* * p < .05;	.19^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	.13	.21^ p < .01	.19^ p < .01	.17^* * p < .05;	.07	.03
Reframing (2)	3.51	.50		1.00	-.52^ p < .01	-.21^ p < .01	.01	-.30^ p < .01	-.25^ p < .01	-.27^ p < .01	-.12	-.25^ p < .01	-.31^ p < .01	-.04	-.18^ p < .01	.40^ p < .01	-.33^ p < .01	-.05
Restructuring/
Realization (3/4)	4.63	.40			1.00	.65^ p < .01	.37^ p < .01	.58^ p < .01	.61^ p < .01	.66^ p < .01	.44^ p < .01	.50^ p < .01	.68^ p < .01	.48^ p < .01	.57^ p < .01	-.04	.53^ p < .01	.03
KMT – global scale (4)	3.50	.25				1.00	.69^ p < .01	.72^ p < .01	.90^ p < .01	.90^ p < .01	.80^ p < .01	.86^ p < .01	.91^ p < .01	.82^ p < .01	.90^ p < .01	.28^ p < .01	.72^ p < .01	.01
Creation and external acquisition (5)	3.09	.32					1.00	.32^ p < .01	.54^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.54^ p < .01	.55^ p < .01	.47^ p < .01	.63^ p < .01	.60^ p < .01	.36^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	-.15^* * p < .05;
Creation and internal acquisition (6)	3.99	.32						1.00	.66^ p < .01	.60^ p < .01	.58^ p < .01	.57^ p < .01	.72^ p < .01	.47^ p < .01	.64^ p < .01	-.03	.73^ p < .01	.09
Attributing meaning to knowledge (7)	3.57	.30							1.00	.79^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.75^ p < .01	.84^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.79^ p < .01	.16^* * p < .05;	.69^ p < .01	.05
Sharing and intentional dissemination (8)	3.31	.31								1.00	.71^ p < .01	.74^ p < .01	.77^ p < .01	.68^ p < .01	.78^ p < .01	.22^ p < .01	.53^ p < .01	-.01
Sharing and unintentional dissemination (9)	3.51	.31									1.00	.65^ p < .01	.69^ p < .01	.58^ p < .01	.65^ p < .01	.20^ p < .01	.54^ p < .01	-.03
Internal and intentional memory (10)	3.47	.28										1.00	.78^ p < .01	.71^ p < .01	.75^ p < .01	.13	.62^ p < .01	.08
Internal and tacit memory (11)	3.65	.29											1.00	.71^ p < .01	.79^ p < .01	.10	.78^ p < .01	.02
External memory (12)	3.38	.30												1.00	.71^ p < .01	.31^ p < .01	.46^ p < .01	-.02
Controlled recovery (13)	3.54	.28													1.00	.24^ p < .01	.65^ p < .01	.05
Automatic recovery (14)	2.94	.35														1.00	-.11	-.10
Utilization of knowledge (15)	4.06	.36															1.00	.07
Team Tenure in months(16)	224.91	84.72																1.00

Note.
^*
p < .05;
^**
p < .01

Table 2 Average Scores and Standard Deviations of the KMT Scale Processes in Accordance with the Three Phases of Group Development: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (F Ratios) and Effect Size (η2)

	Structuring (n = 52)		Reframing (n = 16)		Restructuring/Realization (n = 116)		F (2, 181)	η2
KMT – global scale	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
KMT – global scale	3.47	.24	3.27	.29	3.55	.23
Creation and external acquisition	3.14	.32	2.96	.33	3.11	.32	1.97	.021
Creation and internal acquisition	3.94	.29	3.69	.36	4.07	.30	12.45***	.121
Attributing meaning to knowledge	3.50	.30	3.34	.33	3.65	.27	11.36***	.112
Sharing and intentional dissemination	3.27	.31	2.97	.34	3.39	.30	14.39***	.137
Sharing and unintentional dissemination	3.51	.32	3.29	.30	3.56	.29	5.78^ p < .01	.060
Internal and intentional memory	3.47	.28	3.25	.33	3.52	.27	6.89^ p < .01	.071
Internal and tacit memory	3.58	.27	3.39	.31	3.72	.27	13.17***	.127
External memory	3.39	.32	3.24	.33	3.41	.30	2.29	.025
Controlled recovery	3.52	.27	3.28	.37	3.59	.27	8.66***	.087
Automatic recovery	3.01	.38	2.98	.40	2.90	.31	1.85	.020
Utilization of knowledge	3.95	.35	3.78	.46	4.16	.32	13.13***	.127

Note.
^*
p < .05;
^**
p < .01

Table 3 Differences Between the Averages and Standard Errors (in brackets) of the KMT Scale and Constituent Processes Depending on the Phases of Group Development: Fisher’s LSD Multiple Comparison Tests

	Phases of group development (GDS)
	Reframing (2)	Restructuring/Realization (3/4)
	Differences between the averages (KMT)
GDS	KMT – global scale
Structuring (1)	.202^ p < .01; (.07)	-. 081^* * p = .05; (.04)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 283^* ***** p < .001 (.06)
	KMT – constituent factors
GDS	Creation and external acquisition
Structuring (1)	.180* (.09)	. 031 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 149 (.09)
	Creation and internal acquisition
Structuring (1)	.251^ p < .01; (.09)	- .129^* * p = .05; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 380^* ***** p < .001 (.08)
	Attributing meaning to knowledge
Structuring (1)	.161* (.08)	- .151^ p < .01; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- .312^* ***** p < .001 (.08)
	Sharing and intentional disseminating
Structuring (1)	.295^ p < .01; (.09)	- .122^* * p = .05; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 417^* ***** p < .001 (.08)
	Sharing and unintentional dissemination
Structuring (1)	.219* (.09)	- .05 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 269^ p < .01; (.08)
	Internal and intentional memory
Structuring (1)	.225^ p < .01; (.08)	- .05 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 274^ p < .01; (.07)
	Internal and tacit memory
Structuring (1)	.195^* * p = .05; (.08)	- .140^ p < .01; (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 335^* ***** p < .001 (.07)
	External memory
Structuring (1)	.154 (.09)	- .022 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 176^* * p = .05; (.08)
	Controlled recovery
Structuring (1)	.238^ p < .01; (.08)	- .066 (.05)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 305^* ***** p < .001 (.07)
	Automatic recovery
Structuring (1)	.032 (.10)	- .106 (.06)
Reframing (2)	-	.07 (.09)
	Utilization of knowledge
Structuring (1)	.171 (.10)	- .212^* ***** p < .001 (.06)
Reframing (2)	-	- . 382^* ***** p < .001 (.09)

Note.
^*
p = .05;
^**
p < .01;
^***
p < .001

Como citar

copiar

Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília, 70910-900 - Brasília - DF - Brazil, Tel./Fax: (061) 274-6455 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: revistaptp@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Mensagem

[1] 1Endereço para correspondência: Universidade de Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, Coimbra, Portugal. CEP: 3000-15. E-mail: luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com