Designation I Designation I don’t get assistance
5.2.9 LAB as a knowledge-intensive organization
5.2.9.8 Strong dependence on esoteric knowledge
Figure 41 (N = 143)
Nineteen (19) respondents (13.28 percent) did not know whether there was strong dependence on esoteric knowledge at the LAB. Twelve (12) respondents (8.39 percent) deemed dependence on esoteric knowledge to occur to no extent. Thirty-two (32) respondents (or 22.37 percent) held the view that this dependence was evident to a moderate extent.
8.39
28.67
22.37 15.38
13.28
11.88
Strong dependence on esoteric knowledge
No extent Small extent Moderate extent Large Extent Don’t know Undisclosed
157 5.2.9.9 Staff with a university qualification
Figure 42 (N = 143)
Seventy-five (75) respondents (52.44 percent) indicated that there was a large extent of evidence of staff with a university qualification at the LAB. Fourteen (14) respondents (9.79 percent) found that such a qualification was present to a small extent at the LAB and 7 (4.89 percent) did not know.
4.89 9.79
21.67
52.44
4.89 6.29
Staff with a university qualification
No extent Small extent Moderate extent Large Extent Don’t know Undisclosed
158 5.2.9.10 Professionalism
Figure 43 (N = 143)
Seven (7) respondents (4.89 percent) claimed that they did not know whether professionalism prevailed at the LAB. Seventy-five (75) respondents (52.44 percent) believed that it prevailed to a large extent. One (1) respondent (0.69 percent) stated that there was no extent of professionalism at the LAB.
0.69 9.09
24.47
52.44
4.89 8.39
Professionalism
No extent Small extent Moderate extent
Large Extent Don’t know Undisclosed
159
5.2.10 Understanding of knowledge management
Table 10: Understanding of knowledge management
Description No. %
A tool to manage the
intellectual capital (collective brain) of the organization
60 41.95
A strategic part of the business of the LAB
43 30.06
A tool to manage what an organization knows
20 13.98
Just another management fad 4 2.79
Something one has never heard of
7 4.89
Other comments 9 6.29
The item sought to understand how respondents defined knowledge management. Five of the six items were closed, with the last item being open-ended. Sixty-three (63) respondents (44.05 percent) saw knowledge management as a tool to manage the intellectual capital (collective brain) of the organization. Forty-six (46) individuals who answered the questionnaire (32.16 percent) stated that knowledge management was a strategic part of the business of the LAB.
Twenty-three (23) respondents (16.08 percent) defined knowledge management as a tool to manage what an organization knows. Seven (7) respondents (4.89 percent) thought that knowledge was just another management fad. Nine (9) respondents (6.29 percent) answered the open-ended question. Given the low response rate to this item, the researcher decided to present the actual responses in order to give the reader a full view of the comments provided:
160
• “To keep people informed about what is happening around them to encourage them to be the best in what they do”
• “Retention and recognition of special skills and ensuring filtration of the same to those who need it”
• “To ensure staff are equipped intellectually to deal with their work. To share knowledge gained, that is relevant to one’s work, with other colleagues”
• “The ability to share things with people”
• “Acquiring new and latest fad and sharing same”
• “Independent way of doing things within the organization”
• “Sharing and publicizing for all at the LAB to have access to such”
• “Continuous, systematic acquisition of information, necessary to deliver service”
• “To ensure that there is order and obligation of lab followed”
161 5.2.11 Leaders as facilitators of learning
Table 11: Leaders as facilitators of learning
No extent Small extent
Moderate extent
Large Extent
Don’t know
Undisclosed
No % No % No % No % No % No %
Formal training (non-university based)
8 5.59 19 13.28 49 34.26 60 41.95 5 3.49 2 1.39
Informal training
5 3.49 25 17.48 53 37.06 50 34.96 5 3.49 5 3.49 Use of formal
mentoring practices
8 5.59 31 21.67 41 28.67 54 37.76 6 4.19 3 2.09
Encouragement of experienced personnel to share their knowledge
6 4.19 19 13.28 46 32.16 66 46.15 4 2.79 2 1.39
Provision of opportunities for continuing education (university based)
15 10.48 30 20.97 41 28.67 44 30.76 9 6.29 4 2.79
This item focused on the leadership pillar of the GWU model of knowledge management.
According to Schein (2004) the leadership of an organization can facilitate learning within the organization. Leaders as facilitators of learning were discussed in Chapter Three. Chapter Three centres on the knowledge-sharing aspect of knowledge management. The assertion by Schein provided the impetus for the above item to be included in the questionnaire. Specifically, the above item examines the extent to which the leadership of the LAB facilitates learning within the organization.
162
In retrospect, the researcher is of the view that she should have examined the level of support that each tier of the leadership at the LAB provided. The LAB is a three-tiered organization, namely the executive management team, the regional management team, and the Justice Centre management team. This information would have been useful to identify what was positive or negative in the facilitation of learning in order to encourage the positive and develop the negative.
Sixty-six (66) respondents (46.15 percent) argued that leadership contributed to a large extent to the encouragement of experienced personnel sharing their knowledge. Five (5) respondents (3.49 percent) stated that the influence of leadership on informal training reflected no extent of importance. Sixty (60) respondents (41.95 percent) believed that leadership influenced formal training to a large extent.
163 5.2.11.1 Formal training (non-university based)
Figure 44 (N = 143)
The issue of the leadership of the LAB supporting formal training (non-university based) is indicative of leadership’s attitude towards knowledge-sharing. Five (5) respondents (3.49 percent) did not know whether the influence of leadership facilitated formal training at the LAB, 60 (41.95 percent) of the individuals who responded believed that leadership facilitated and influenced formal training at the LAB to a large extent.
5.59
13.28
34.26 41.95
3.49 1.39
Formal training (non-university based)
No extent Small extent Moderate extent
Large Extent Don’t know Undisclosed
164 5.2.11.2 Informal training
Figure 45 (N = 143)
Twenty-five (25) (17.48 percent) of the respondents saw the influence of leadership in informal training as being of a small extent while 53 respondents (37.06 percent) alleged that leadership swayed informal training to a moderate extent. Five (5) (3.49 percent) respondents did not know whether leadership was linked to informal training at the LAB.
3.49
17.48
37.06 34.96
3.49 3.49
Informal training
No extent Small extent Moderate extent
Large Extent Don’t know Undisclosed
165 5.2.11.3 Use of formal mentoring practices
Figure 46 (N = 143)
The measurement of a large extent of leadership influencing the use of formal mentoring practices at the LAB was mentioned by 54 ( 37.76 percent) individuals. Six (6) respondents (4.19 percent) did not know whether the above was true.
5.59
21.67
28.67 37.76
4.19 2.09
Use of formal mentoring practices
No extent Small extent Moderate extent Large Extent Don’t know Undisclosed
166