Compare and contrast this Functional OBS with that of the Matrix OBS using a table and based on this comparative analysis, recommend the OBS which is more favourable for project management, and outline factors that determine OBS selection.
The Influence of Project Commitment and Team Commitment on the Relationship Between Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Project Teams Knowledge sharing in a team context is likely to be influenced by team members’ beliefs and feelings about one another, particularly their trust in one another (Lee et al., 2010). According to Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998), teams require more trust because of their interdependent tasks. In a project setting, interdependence is high, and team members must rely on one another for task performance, thus making trust particularly important. Most scholars recognize that trust is a complex and multidimensional construct. Many definitions exist, but scholars seem to agree that trust includes “positive” or “confident” expectations about another party, and a “willingness to accept vulnerability” in the relationship, under conditions of interdependence and risk. Propensity to trust and trustworthiness have been the two most common measured components of trust and constitute formative indicators of the higher-order construct (trust). Costa and Anderson (2011) contended that in a team setting, trust can be conceptualized as a latent construct based on an individual’s own propensity to trust others and on the perceived trustworthiness of the other team members, which then leads to behaviors of cooperation and monitoring among team members. In line with Bakker et al. (2006), we retain only the formative indicators of trust in order to examine how trust relates to (knowledge sharing) action. The propensity to trust is referred to as a general willingness to trust others (Rotter, 1980); in teams, this propensity is likely to influence, and be influenced by, other team members (Costa & Anderson, 2011). Trustworthiness, which is defined as the extent to which individuals expect others to uphold and behave according to their claims, has both cognitive and emotional grounds (McAllister, 1995), and develops from perceptions and information regarding competence, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). A vast amount of research has suggested that trust facilitates knowledge sharing. According to Dirks and Ferrin (2001), trust encourages knowledge sharing by increasing the disclosure of knowledge to others and by granting others access to one’s own knowledge. In this way, trust affects knowledge sharing from the perspectives of both the knowledge sender and receiver (McEvily et al., 2003). Knowledge that comes from a trusted teammate is perceived as reliable, and people are more inclined to accept such knowledge at face value. Trust may also enhance knowledge sharing because it reduces our inclination to monitor others and to safeguard our-selves. People are better able to both acquire and share knowledge if they do not anticipate harmful consequences of doing so. Conversely, if team members do not perceive one another as capable and trustworthy, they are less likely to accept one another’s knowledge. Moreover, distrust is associated with knowledge-hiding behaviors (Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is commonly used to explain how trust relates to knowledge sharing. Social exchange refers to voluntary actions that are motivated by expected returns and actual returns. Knowledge sharing is largely a voluntary behavior with uncertain rewards (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Because trust is one of the underlying percepts of an effective social exchange, it may also affect knowledge sharing behaviors (Staples & Webster, 2008). When team members trust one another, they will be more sensitive to their colleagues’ needs and more willing to help them; hence, social exchange will be more likely to take place. As a result, team members will be more likely to engage in the sharing of knowledge without hoarding (Wu, Hsu, & Yeh, 2007). Commitment and Knowledge Sharing Commitment has been recognized as an important variable in explaining knowledge sharing (Van den Hooff & De Leeuw van Weenen, 2004). Research has shown that employees identify more closely, and feel more committed, to their work group than to the organization as a whole (Riketta & van Dick, 2005); however, there is a lack of studies on commitment to teams in general (Neininger, Lehmann- Willenbrock, Kauffeld, & Henschel, 2010). Nevertheless, some such studies exist, and these have found that commitment to the team may lead to greater knowledge sharing. Team commitment can be understood as the relative strength of team members’ involvement and identification with the team (Bishop & Scott, 2000). When team commitment is high, team members value the relationship, and they are willing to exert effort to maintain it and make it work. The interests and goals of the team become important, giving team members a sense of responsibility to help one another (Chang et al., 2013). This feeling of obligation may make them more willing to provide relevant and useful knowledge to the team. In a project setting, people may have multiple foci of commitments: team commitment, project commitment, professional commitment, organizational commitment, and so on. Commitment is likely to influence team members’ efforts, and has been associated with enhanced team performance. In a project context, a recent study by Ehrhardt, Miller, Freeman, and Hom (2013) demonstrated that project commitment significantly predicts team performance in cross-functional product development teams. By identifying with the team and the project, team members can be expected to see themselves as responsible not only for their own performance, but for the overall outcomes of the project. Conversely, if team members are not committed to the project, they will most likely not exert the level of effort necessary for project success. Within the context of construction projects, studies have shown that the commitment of team members is critical to the timely completion of projects and a successful outcome. For a project to succeed, team members from different disciplines and organizational departments must work collaboratively, set aside competing interests, and commit to the goals of the project (Ehrhardt et al., 2013). To be able to interact and share knowledge effectively in such a setting, team members must be motivated to do so. We will argue that this motivational element can be found in team members’ commitment. When team members are committed to the team and/or the project, their feeling of affiliation is broadened and they will feel responsible for the outcomes of the project. The sharing of knowledge assumes that team members are willing to contribute to a common goal, and we therefore expect both foci of commitment to be positively related to knowledge sharing in project teams. Source: Project Management Journal. Apr/May2017, Vol. 48 Issue 2, p5-21. 17p Answer ALL the questions in this section.
Question 2 (30 Marks) “… the company is organized along strictly functional lines.” In light of this statement, it is clear that the Organisational Breakdown Structure (OBS) in the article above is most certainly the Functional OBS which seems not to be in the favour of the project manager. Compare and contrast this Functional OBS with that of the Matrix OBS using a table and based on this comparative analysis, recommend the OBS which is more favourable for project management, and outline factors that determine OBS selection.