Are two heads better than one? Intellectual capital, learning and knowledge sharing in a dyadic interdisciplinary relationship

Abstract

Purpose Past studies have paid extensive attention to investigate learning issues in individual, organizational and team contexts. Learning activities in the workplace, however, often occur in the interdisciplinary dyadic context. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to clarify what factors make interdisciplinary dyads lead to better learning effects. The authors attempted to clarify two major agendas: What knowledge factors (intellectual capitals) owned by the parties of the dyads can induce better learning effects? What contextual factors (learning tasks) can make better learning effects during the dyadic learning process? Design/methodology/approach To examine the previous agendas, the authors first conducted in-depth interviews and an exploratory survey so that a four-element dyadic intellectual capital (DIC) architecture was circumscribed: knowledge interdependency, expertise similarity, collaborative routines and mutual trust. Dyadic learning tasks were classified as exploitative and exploratory learning. The authors then sampled 248 respondents for the formal empirical survey to examine the relationship between DIC, dyadic learning tasks and knowledge sharing. Findings The statistical evidences confirmed the positive relationships between DIC and knowledge sharing, and the results also signified the previous relationships with a mediating effect from exploratory learning, while the effect of exploitative learning was not supported. Thus, only dyads (the two heads) with knowledge interdependency and mutual trust can make the exploratory task better than that of one individual (the one head). Originality/value This study provides a new insight into the learning issue with an interdisciplinary dyadic perspective to supplement the existing gap between academic efforts and learning practices in the workplace.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.