VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1 SPRING 2021

7 4 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 7 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 2 1 5 Methodology and Results Analysis: Integrative Literature Review Following the discussion of the systematical review results, this section presents an integrative review. It is an appropriate method to critically review and synthesize the literature of emerging topics in an integrated form to generate new frameworks (Torraco 2005b; Snyder 2019). Therefore, it was conducted to address the development of the theoretical framework regarding the relationship between knowledge management, organizational practical wisdom and organizational spirituality (Fig. 1). Abductive reasoning enables elaborating new theories; it emerges from the investigators’ curiosity about a circumstance (Ezzy 2002). The possibility of a strong relationship between the organization levels of these constructs is the circumstance here. The systematic literature review revealed that the investigation regarding the relationship between the constructs is mainly on the individual level (Tab. 1). The criteria beneath were used to choose the articles to the integrative review (an adaptation of Torraco, 2005a): • The purpose of the theory includes epistemological explanations regarding practical wisdom (phronesis) (leader, individual, workplace and organization). • The purpose of the theory includes epistemological explanations regarding the dimensions of spirituality (leader, individual, workplace and organization). • The purpose of the theory includes epistemological explanations regarding knowledge management (knowledge/ knowing, knowledge creation/sharing, shared contexts (ba) and organizational learning). • The purpose of the theory includes epistemological explanations regarding two or three of the previous constructs. The term wisdom has several concepts, definitions, and points of view (O’Grady 2019; Gugerell and Riffert 2011; Glück et al. 2013; Baltes and Staudinger 2000; Ardelt 2003; Aristotle 1893; Aquinas 1485). The common point in management is that all deal with human affairs regardless of the concept applied. For the construction of the theoretical framework, the more appropriate is the definition and terminology used are that presented by Aristotle (1893), practical wisdom (phronesis) (Rowley and Gibbs 2008). The results are categorized in Table 2 concerning its theoretical approach. The levels of each construct were sorted according to the ontological levels of each (individuals and collectives). 6 Discussion and Theoretical Framework: Integrative Literature Review 6.1 From Knowledge Management through Organizational Practical Wisdom Knowledge is a continuum between explicit and tacit dimensions (Polanyi 1958). Some knowledge is easily shared orally, and others will only be successfully shared through observation and practice (Polanyi 1958; Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019; Cook and Brown 1999). Either knowledge must make sense so that the member can apply it correctly and achieve the expected result (Polanyi 1958; Senge 1990; Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019). Members initially hold knowledge. Individual knowledge will be the raw material for organizational knowledge (Senge 1990; Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019; Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Grant 1996). When a group has its languages and meanings that make sense only to them, knowledge becomes collective, common (Grant 1996; Senge 1990; Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Cook and Brown 1999). For instance, their metaphors are embedded in organizational memory, are means for organizational learning and knowledge sharing (Argyris and Schön 1978; Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019). Alongside common language, there are other forms, such as symbolic communication, recognition of each member’s knowledge, high level of sophistication in the knowledge held, and shared meaning (Grant 1996). Then, sharing individual knowledge builds collective knowledge (Grant 1996; Senge 1990; Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Cook and Brown 1999), and a common purpose ties this collective knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019; Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Senge 1990; Popper and Lipshitz 2004). An organization should be an environment where members are continually outstripping themselves, achieving results genuinely wanted, maturing, and expanding the mentality, continuously learning how to learn from each other (Senge 1990). Possessing a large amount of knowledge alone is not a solution to organizational problems (Erden, von Krogh and Nonaka 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi 2019; Senge 1990; Bierly, Kessler and Christensen 2000; Grant 1996; Rooney and McKenna 2007). Knowing presupposes the right application of the knowledge possessed (Cook and Brown 1999; Grant 1996). The

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=