what motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside ... - CiteSeerX

10.1177/0021943605279485 JOURNAL Burgess / WHAT OF BUSINESS MOTIVATES COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES

ARTICLE

WHAT MOTIVATES EMPLOYEES TO TRANSFER KNOWLEDGE OUTSIDE THEIR WORK UNIT? Diana Burgess

University of Minnesota

Although intrafirm knowledge transfer is linked with higher productivity and organizational survival, information sharing across units remains a challenge. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, motivations predictive of employees’ decisions to share and seek knowledge beyond their work group were examined in the present study. Results of a quantitative survey (N = 480) found that employees who perceived greater organizational rewards for sharing spent more hours sharing knowledge beyond their immediate work group. In contrast, employees who perceived knowledge as a means of achieving upward organizational mobility were less likely to share and somewhat more likely to seek information. In addition, employees were less motivated to share and seek knowledge beyond their work group to the extent that they believed that reciprocity norms governed information exchange and to the extent they identified more strongly with their subunit relative to the organization. Practical implications and directions for future research are explored in the concluding discussion of the article. Keywords: knowledge management; knowledge transfer; motivation; functional approach; interunit communication

In the present economy, knowledge is a critical organizational asset (Tucker, Meyer, & Westerman, 1996). Moreover, for many activities, such as product development (Hansen, 1999) and diffusing best practices across the organization (Darr, Argote, & Epple, 1995), expertise must be transferred and shared among units. Indeed, companies that are more effective at knowledge transfer have been shown to have a greater likelihood of organizational survival and higher levels of productivity (Darr et al., 1995; Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Galbraith, 1990). Despite a growing understanding of the importance of knowledge transfer, the sharing of information within organizations remains a challenge. For example, in a survey of 431 U.S. and European organizations, only 13% of the respondents Diana Burgess (Ph.D., University of Minnesota, 1998) is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota and at the Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Diana Burgess, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, One Veterans Drive Mail stop 152/2E, Minneapolis, MN 55417; e-mail: [email protected]. The author would like to thank Pamela Hinds and Jeffrey Pfeffer for their contribution to the project. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Journal of Business Communication, Volume 42, Number 4, October 2005 324-348 DOI: 10.1177/0021943605279485 © 2005 by the Association for Business Communication

Burgess / WHAT MOTIVATES EMPLOYEES

325

believed that their company was good or excellent at transferring existing knowledge into other parts of the organization (Ruggles, 1998). Another survey conducted of three global Fortune 500 corporations found that the actual knowledge transfer among the corporations’subsidiaries (as reported by each subsidiary president and his or her immediate superior) was much lower than the parent-company’s expectations about the amount of knowledge transfer that they believed should occur (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000a). Moreover, interventions aimed at increasing knowledge transfer have met with limited success. For example, a study of 32 knowledge transfer attempts within units in the same organization found that 10 failed completely (Galbraith, 1990). One impediment to developing successful knowledge transfer initiatives seems to be the tendency of practitioners and researchers to focus on tools (e.g., technology) and tasks (e.g., routines), with less attention paid to knowledge-transfer among people (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Huysman & de Wit, 2003). However, because a significant amount of knowledge is embedded in individual employees, communication of knowledge among members is a critical aspect of knowledge transfer. Moreover, memberto-member knowledge transfer is especially beneficial to an organization’s competitive advantage because this type of transfer is less susceptible to “external knowledge spillover” than transfer involving tools and tasks, which often results in codified knowledge that can be more readily “leaked” to competitors (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Given the importance of member-to-member knowledge transfer, it is not surprising that employee motivation has been identified as a major barrier to successful knowledge transfer initiatives (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Ruggles, 1998; Szulanski, 2000). This finding is vividly illustrated by the following remark by a CEO: “We provide pretty much the same services in every location. But my regional managers would rather die than learn from each other” (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000b). In contrast, case studies of organizations that are successful at transferring knowledge, such as Toyota, have been able to “motivate members to participate and contribute knowledge to the collective good” (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). In the knowledge-management literature, the term motivation is generally understood to refer to individual motives that are designed to benefit the self (e.g., extrinsic versus intrinsic, Osterloh & Frey, 2000). By contrast, social and personality psychologists have tended to adopt a broader definition that encompasses other sources of motivation, such as the motivation to benefit one’s group or the members of one’s social network (e.g., Snyder & Cantor, 1998). The aim of the present study is to use this broader definition of motivation to integrate existing research in the knowledge-transfer literature, which heretofore has not been identified as pertaining to motivation, into a broader framework that can be empirically tested. The proposed framework is grounded in a functional approach to motivation (for an overview, see Snyder & Cantor, 1998), which has been used to understand different motivations that may underlie people’s decision to engage in volunteerism

326

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

(Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Miene, & Hangen 1994; Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Coperland, et al., 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1995), voting (Lavine et al., 1999), and organizational citizenship behaviors (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997; Rioux & Penner, 2001). The functional approach posits that a single behavior may serve different psychological functions for people, depending on their individual characteristics (e.g., personality) and characteristics of their situation (e.g., the organizational context). For example, one person’s primary motivation for sharing information might be to accrue recognition and rewards, whereas another person might be primarily motivated by a desire to help his or her colleagues. Importantly, motivating individual behavior change has been shown to be more successful to the extent that the intervention targets the underlying functions that these behaviors serve. For example, persuasive appeals to motivate people to volunteer were found to be most effective when they were designed to target the primary function that volunteering served for the particular individual (e.g., Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Miene, et al., 1994). Recent work on the functional approach (Snyder & Cantor, 1998) suggests that people’s motivation for engaging in a particular behavior can be classified in terms of whether it fulfills individual-, interpersonal-, relational-, or group-level agendas. It should be noted, however, that these categories are not always distinct and may overlap. Individual-level agendas concern goals that primarily involve a single person, interpersonal-level agendas focus on immediate transactions between individuals, relationship-level agendas focus on ongoing associations, and group-level agendas focus on the collective entities to which one belongs (e.g., one’s country, one’s university). HYPOTHESES

This section offers a functional approach to organize the extant knowledgetransfer literature and, presents the hypotheses investigated in the study about how employees’ willingness to share and seek knowledge across units may be influenced by motives at these different levels. Individual-Level Motives Extrinsic rewards. Because time is a scarce resource in organizations, extrinsic rewards signal to employees that time spent sharing knowledge is deemed important by the organization (Huber, 1991; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Pan & Scarbrough, 1998). Although practitioners and researchers have identified “nontrivial” extrinsic rewards for knowledge sharing as an important motivator (e.g., Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000a KPMG, 2000), surveys have found that the majority of managers and executives do not believe that their organization adequately rewards or recognizes knowledge sharing (KPMG, 2000; Ruggles, 1998). Nonetheless, companies that have been


327

identified as leaders in knowledge management have utilized extrinsic rewards (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). For example, consultants at Ernst and Young and McKinsey are evaluated, in part, based on knowledge they contribute. Taking a different approach, Buckman Laboratories created a high profile event to recognize the top 150 “knowledge sharers,” who were rewarded with a laptop computer and a company trip to a resort. Extrinsic rewards also have been demonstrated to increase knowledge sharing across work units (Irmer, Bordia, & Abusah, 2002). Therefore, it is hypothesized that Hypothesis 1: Employees will share more to the extent that they perceive that the organization gives credit for doing so.

Fear of punishment. Research has found that employees are less likely to exchange information in the absence of openness, psychological safety, and trust (e.g., Orlikowski, 1993; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000; Pan & Scarbrough, 1998; Ruppel & Harrington, 2000). For example, Ruppel and Harrington (2000) found that employees were less likely to share knowledge through company intranets when they perceived a lack of mutual confidence and trust in their organizational culture. Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) argue that fear is pervasive in the workplace and reduces the extent to which knowledge is shared and acted upon. For example, in a 1994 survey, 16% of workers reported having withheld a suggestion for improving work performance because they feared for their jobs (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1994). Likewise, Orlikowski (1993) observed that people were reluctant to share information on a groupware system because they were fearful that the information could be used against them. Hence, it was hypothesized, Hypothesis 2: Employees will share less to the extent that they perceive knowledge sharing to be potentially risky.

Interpersonal Level Motives A number of interpersonal transactions in organizations are motivated by impression management concerns, or the desire to influence the image others have of oneself (e.g., Cady & Fandt, 2001; Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Impression management motives can be grouped into those that serve acquisitive functions (i.e., behaviors aimed at attaining something from others) and self-protective functions (i.e., behaviors aimed at avoiding negative consequences such as disapproval or embarrassment; Cady & Fandt, 2001; Gangstead & Snyder, 2000). The idea of using knowledge as a means of enhancing one’s organizational influence and reputation is consistent with a strategic contingency view of power that argues that organizational members who maintain control over valued resources and are able to reduce uncertainty will enjoy more power (e.g., Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schenck, & Pennings, 1971). For example, Pettigrew (1972)

328


observed how a manager influenced his firm’s decision to purchase a computer system by controlling the flow of information. Managing the dissemination of knowledge therefore, can help individuals gain influence in the organization (Feldman & March, 1981), although it is also likely to result in strategies in which information is shared selectively and strategically, rather than freely, and where a great deal of effort is put into seeking information, in order to acquire this important resource. Consequently, it was hypothesized that Hypothesis 3: The extent to which employees viewed knowledge as a way to achieve organizational influence within the organization will be associated with less sharing (H3a) and more seeking (H3b).

Avoid embarrassment. From an impression-management perspective, seeking knowledge can hurt the seeker’s reputation if it is perceived as asking for help (dePaulo & Fisher, 1980; Lee, 1997, 2002). “By seeking help, one publicly acknowledges incompetence, inferiority, and dependence in front of another person, which can be highly threatening to one’s public impressions within organizational settings” (Lee, 2002, p. 19). Seeking information may be particularly costly in companies that operate within highly individualistic countries, such as the United States, in which independence and competition are more highly valued than interdependence and cooperation (Lee, 1997). Therefore, it was hypothesized that Hypothesis 4: The belief that seeking knowledge could make the seeker seem incompetent will decrease time spent seeking knowledge.

Relationship-Level Motives Workplace relationships have been shown to be an important conduit for information sharing. For example, knowledge sharing has been shown to be more likely among employees with strong social networks (e.g., Szulanski, 1996), leading scholars to recommend that organizations provide opportunities for employees to form social relationships in order to enhance knowledge transfer (e.g., Argote, 1999). Clark and Mills’s (1993) distinction between exchange and communal relationships provides a useful framework for understanding different types of norms that might govern the exchange of information within employees’ social networks. In exchange relationships, benefits are given within the norm of reciprocity, in which the expectation is that the recipient will pay benefits back to the giver. In contrast, in communal relationships, benefits are given based on the other’s need, without the expectation of reciprocation. A cross-cultural comparison of computer engineers in America and India (Perlow & Weeks, 2002) illustrates the impact of relational orientation on knowledge sharing. In contrast to Indian engineers, who were more willing to provide


329

help to whomever needed it, American engineers’decisions to help their colleagues were largely governed by reciprocity norms, in which workers were more responsive to and more likely to help colleagues perceived to be more valuable sources of help. One result of this exchange orientation was a restricted flow of knowledge in the American firm, which was illustrated by one engineer’s comment that, “I am careful not to establish a reputation for being helpful, because they will come to me all of the time. I want them to think twice before they approach me” (p. 352). To capture the idea that reciprocity norms would hinder and communal norms would facilitate the free-flow of information, it was hypothesized that Hypothesis 5: Employees’ who are motivated by reciprocity norms will share and seek knowledge less frequently. Hypothesis 6: Employees who are motivated by communal norms will share knowledge more frequently.

Group-Level Motivations Research on social identification has shown that individuals derive part of their self-concept from their group membership and that this social identification leads individuals to hold attitudes and behave in ways that benefit the group (see Brewer & Brown, 1998, for a review). Likewise, organizational research has shown that the more an employee identifies with his or her firm, the greater the likelihood that the employee will behave in ways that benefit the firm (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Rioux & Penner, 2001). Because knowledge transfer serves to benefit organizations, it follows that strong levels of organizational identification would be expected to increase employees’ motivation to engage in knowledge-transfer activities. In support of this hypothesis, an analysis cited Toyota’s ability to get suppliers to strongly identify with the Toyota organization as a critical factor in its ability to induce suppliers to participate in its knowledge-sharing network (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). One impediment to knowledge transfer is the fact that employees have multiple groups with which they can identify. In addition to identifying with the larger organization, employees also may identify with their subunit, such as their work groups, function, or divisions (e.g., van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Strong levels of subunit identification, relative to organizational identification, are posited to be associated with lower levels of knowledge sharing because it prompts competition between groups (Argote & Ingram 2000; Moreland & Levine 2000; Tsai, 2002). Accordingly, one study found that employees who identified more with their subunit (marketing versus engineering) than the organization as a whole were less likely to share information outside their subunits (Fisher, Maltz, & Jaworski, 1997). A second study, Tsai (2002) found that interunit competition had a negative effect on knowledge sharing between the competing units. Hence, it was hypothesized that

330


Hypothesis 7: More identification with one’s own division and less identification with the firm as a whole will be associated with less knowledge sharing (H7a) and seeking (H7b).

RESEARCH OVERVIEW

The studies described in the present investigation were conducted in the headquarters of a consumer-packaged-goods organization (referred to as CPG) located in the United States. CPG is composed of a central organization and a number of divisions that are responsible for different types of products. At the time of the study, approximately 3,000 employees worked at CPG headquarters. CPG is in a relatively stable industry with mature products and can be characterized as hierarchical and internally competitive. In a climate survey preceding the study, 58% of the respondents responded positively (agreed or strongly agreed) with the statement “too many approvals are required for routine decisions in this company” and 34% responded positively to the statement “groups in divisions seem to be detrimentally competing against others for resources.” At the time of this study, “boundarylessness” (or sharing knowledge across divisions) had been identified as an organizational priority in several functions throughout CPG. Leaders within CPG sponsored this study with the expectation that the results would inform the development of specific initiatives designed to enhance cross-divisional knowledge transfer. A quantitative survey and qualitative key informant interview study were conducted. The interviews and survey were separate data-collection events that were both used to independently gather information. The survey allowed for a quantitative test of the extent to which various motives were predictive of the amount of time that employees shared and sought out knowledge beyond their work group. Survey results were complemented by semistructured interviews with 58 employees, which provided insight as to how features of the organizational context influenced employee motivations to transfer knowledge. STUDY 1: SURVEY

Method Participants and Procedure

A Web-based survey was distributed to all assistant managers, managers, and directors in CPG who were based in the United States (n = 781). By filling out and returning a coupon at the end of the survey, all respondents were eligible to receive two free movie tickets. A total of 480 people completed the survey, a response rate


Table 1.

331

Survey Demographics Percentage

Age Not valid 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Race or ethnicity Caucasian African American Asian American Hispanic Native American Other or no response

0.6 1.5 34.2 29.4 26.5 7.9 87 4 2 2 2 3

of 61.5%. Respondents represented all of the divisions within the firm and were spread across the three levels surveyed (assistant manager = 22.3%, manager = 67.1%, director = 7.3%). Consistent with the demographics of the firm, a majority of the respondents were male (67%) and Caucasian (90%) with a mean tenure of 12.98 years. Additional demographic information is presented in Table 1. Model Construction

Survey questions were developed to test hypotheses presented above and the survey instrument was pilot-tested on several employees. Scales were created to capture the following predictors of knowledge transfer: (a) individual-level motives of extrinsic rewards and desire to avoid punishment, (b) acquisitive and protective impression-management concerns (i.e., the perception that knowledge could help CPG employees “get ahead” and the perception seeking knowledge made employees look incompetent), and (c) perception of reciprocity norms and communal motives. Items comprising these scales as well as scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas) are presented in Figure 1. To capture the extent to which employees identified their division relative to the organization as a whole, a “relative divisional identification” variable was created based on Fisher et al’s (1997) formula for calculating relative functional identification, in which employees’ selfreported closeness to the division was divided by self-reported closeness to CPG (in which closeness was measured on a 1 to 6 scale, with 1 indicating very distant and 6 indicating very close.) The primary dependent variables in this study were time spent sharing and time spent seeking, assessed by the following questions: “Outside of requests within your project team(s), how many hours per week do you spend sharing information with others?” and, “Outside of requests within your project team(s), how many hours per week do you spend seeking information from others?” Because this

332


Perceived organizational credit for sharing (alpha = .90) To what extent does sharing knowledge lead to the following benefits? Increased chance of promotion Increased chance of a favorable transfer Positive performance evaluation More recognition from your superiors Increased credibility with your superiors Credit or acknowledgement in the work that follows from your help. Perceived punishment for sharing (alpha = .60) I am uncomfortable sharing with people outside my project team(s) information about my past projects that did not turn out well. Sharing information about past failures with others outside of my project team(s) often has negative consequences. People outside my project team(s) often challenge my knowledge when I share it. There are negative consequences for being candid or giving an opposing point of view. Interpersonal Perception that knowledge is associated with organizational success (alpha = .79) Knowledge is important in getting ahead at CPG. Knowledge is a valuable resource at CPG. People with a lot of knowledge are more successful at CPG. Perceived negative reputation for seeking (alpha = .89) Seeking knowledge from other people may make me look less knowledgeable than I really am. Seeking knowledge may imply a lack of competence. Seeking knowledge too many times can make me look bad. Relational Social benefits from sharing (alpha = .83) To what extent does sharing knowledge lead to the following benefits? Social connectedness at work Satisfaction from making a contribution to others Personal enjoyment of the sharing experience Perception of reciprocity norms (alpha = .71) I make a special effort to share knowledge with people who have shared their knowledge with me. People who share their knowledge are entitled to ask for favors in return. People at CPG make it a regular practice to return favors to coworkers who share knowledge. People who receive knowledge should show their appreciation in a concrete way. To what extent does sharing knowledge lead to favors being returned? Figure 1. Motivations to Share or Seek Knowledge Individual Note: CPG = consumer-packaged-goods organization.

measure consisted of count data that followed a Poisson distribution, an appropriate variance stabilizing transformation for nonconstant variance (the square root of the number of hours spent seeking/sharing) was used in the analyses. Gender was included as a control variable in both models. The model predicting time spent sharing included tenure and frequency of sharing as additional controls.


333

Tenure was included because long-tenured individuals in CPG were expected to be sought more often and share information more often than short-tenured individuals (see Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Frequency of being asked was included because people who are asked for more information are likely to share more information (Monge, Edwards, & Kirste, 1978). Tenure and the extent to which respondents felt that knowledge from other units at CPG was a poor fit with their needs were added as controls in the models predicting time spent seeking and frequency of seeking. Turnover was included in models predicting information seeking because turnover can make it more difficult for those remaining to find the correct sources of knowledge (see Argote, 1999, chap. 2). In the interviews, CPG employees lamented not being able to find people with knowledge because others had recently left or changed positions within the firm. Therefore, turnover was measured by the sum of respondents’ answers to questions about the number of people who had left CPG and the number of people who had changed jobs within CPG in the past 6 months. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between variables included in the multiple regression equations are presented in Table 2. Results Respondents reported spending an average of 6.36 hours per week sharing (SD = 6.92) and 4.87 hours per week seeking (SD = 4.60) information outside of their own project teams. Respondents reported being asked for a substantial piece of knowledge an average of 9.20 times per month. Results of two multiple-regression analyses designed to test the study’s primary hypotheses are presented in the following sections. (The full models predicting time spent sharing and time spent seeking can be found in Table 3 and Table 4.) Individual-level motivations. In Hypothesis 1, it was argued that employees would share more knowledge when they believed that the organization gave credit for those activities. In support of this hypothesis, employees reported spending more time sharing knowledge with those outside of their own unit when they believed that the organization rewarded sharing (β = .16, p < .01; see Table 3). Hypothesis 2 predicted that employees would spend less time sharing to the extent that sharing was viewed as a threatening activity. Contrary to this prediction, viewing sharing as a threatening activity within CPG was associated with more rather than less time spent sharing (β = .09, p = .06; see Table 3), although the relation was only marginally significant. Interpersonal-level motives. Acquisitive impression management (IM) motives, operationalized as the extent to which employees believed that knowledge was important for success in CPG, was associated with less time spent sharing (β = –.15, p < .01; see Table 3) and was associated with more time spent seeking information (β = 0.08, p < .10; see Table 4), although the latter relation was only marginally significant. This provides partial support for Hypotheses

334

Time seekinga Time sharinga Rewards for sharing Threat climate for sharing Organizational influence Social connectedness Reciprocity norms Relative divisional identification Seeking makes look bad Gender (female = 0, male = 1) Tenure (in years) Poor qualiy knowledge Turnover (# transferred)

6.36 6.92 4.87 4.60 3.96 1.39 3.28 1.05 5.33 1.21 5.16 1.20 4.49 1.05 1.26 0.56 2.44 1.21 0.67 0.47 13.31 10.33 3.67 1.14 2.27 1.75

SD .49* .06 .18* 0 –.02 –.05 –.07 .12* .14* .03 .12** .31*

1

.10** .11** –.06 –.01 –.12** –.05 .03 .05 .11** .00 .19*

2

.00 .41* .34* .22* –.10** .10 –.05 –.07 –.16* –.06

3

4

–.09** –.08 .10** –.04 .36* –.01 –.04 .25* .20*

a. The square root of time spent seeking and/or sharing was used in the correlation matrix. *p < .01. **p < .05.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Mean

5

.21** .25* –.01 .05 –.04 –.12* –.14* –.10**

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Table (N = 480)

Variable

Table 2. 7

8

.21* –.03 –.04 –.01 .06 .01 –.10 –.06 .04 –.09** –.13* .00 –.06 .11** .07 –.15** .07 –.04

6

–.02 –.13* .23* .15*

9

11

.31* –.18* –.23* .11** –.02

10

.15*

12


Table 3.

335

Summary of Multiple Regression Model Predicting Time Spent Sharing Knowledge Outside Employee’s Project Team (n = 376)

Variable Control variables Gender (female = 0, male = 1) Tenure (in years) Frequency of sharing Individual level Rewards Threatening environment for sharing Interpersonal level Organizational influence Relational level Social connectedness Reciprocity norms Group level Relative divisional identification

B

SE B

.11 .01 .03

.12 .01 .00

.04 .06 .42*

.14 .10

.05 .05

.16* .08***

–.15

.05

–.15*

.01 –.12

.05 .05

.01 –.10**

–.21

.10

–.09**

2

Note: R = .26. *p < .01. **p < .05. ***p < .10. Table 4.

Summary of Multiple Regression Model Predicting Time Spent Seeking Knowledge Outside Employee’s Project Team (n = 382)

Variable Control variables Gender (female = 0, male = 1) Poor quality knowledge Turnover Interpersonal level Organizational influence Fear of looking bad Relational level Reciprocity norms Group level Relative divisional identification

B

SE B

.32 .11 .16

.10 .04 .03

.16* .13 .28

.07 .06

.04 .04

.08*** .08***

–.09

.04

–.09***

–.20

.08

–.11**

2

Note: R = .16. *p < .01. **p < .05. ***p < .10.

3a and 3b. Perceiving that seeking knowledge would make the seeker “look bad” was only a marginally significant predictor of time spent seeking knowledge (β = .08, p < .10; see Table 4). Relational-level motivations. Consistent with hypothesis 5a, perceiving that reciprocity for knowledge sharing was a norm within the organization was associated with diminished levels of knowledge sharing (β = –.10, p < .05; see Table

336


4) and seeking (β = –.09, p < .10; see Table 4), although the latter relation was only marginally significant. Moreover, the hypothesis (Hypothesis 6) that employees’ would spend more time sharing to the extent that they perceived social benefits to sharing was not supported (β = .01, ns; see Table 3). Group-level motivations. In support of Hypotheses 7a and 7b, identifying more strongly with one’s division relative to the organization as a whole reduced interunit knowledge transfer. Specifically, employees who identified more strongly with their division relative to the organization as a whole spent less time sharing (β = –.09, p < .05; see Table 3) and seeking information beyond their project team (β = –.11, p < .05; see Table 4). STUDY 2: INTERVIEW STUDY

Method Participants and Procedure

A total of 58 employees from CPG (26 men and 32 women) agreed to participate. Participants spanned a range of hierarchical levels (assistant manager/ manager, director, vice president/president, officer) and were from a variety of divisions and functions within the organization (marketing, market research, research and development, information technology, sales, legal, executive, and human resources). Participants were nominated by key informants, who were asked to select employees whom they believed would be candid and forthcoming. Key informants also identified several employees whom they believed were highly motivated to share and seek knowledge. The sample included relatively new employees who had worked at CPG between 1 and 2 years, as well as longtime employees who had worked at CPG for 20 or more years. A total of 51 participants were Caucasian and the remaining 7 were Hispanic, African American, and Asian American. Semistructured interviews were conducted with participants using an interview guide that had been pilot tested with CPG employees and further modified.1 Interviews with assistant managers and managers lasted approximately 1 hour and the interviews with higher-level employees lasted approximately ½ hour. Interviewees were invited to participate in the study through an e-mail message that explained that the study was sponsored by the market research function and described the study as focusing on “knowledge and information flow . . . so that we can make it easier for people to get the knowledge and information that they need.” Assistant managers and managers were given a $25.00 gift certificate for participating.2 Interviews were tape-recorded and results were transcribed.


337

Data Analysis

For the initial analysis, overarching categories of barriers and facilitators to knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking were created based upon the interview transcripts. These barriers and facilitators were further classified as to whether they appeared to fulfill agendas at the individual, interpersonal, relational, or group level. Individual quotations were then coded in terms of whether they fit into these different categories. Results (themes and illustrative quotations) were presented to several groups of CPG employees for their feedback and validation. Employees’ generally agreed that the results accurately depicted issues involving information exchange within CPG. Results Overview. The most salient barriers to employees’ willingness to share and seek knowledge beyond their work group were as follows: (a) the lack of extrinsic rewards and (b) interdivisional competition and greater loyalty and identification with the division relative to the larger firm. Importantly, even employees who were motivated to share and/or seek for other reasons (e.g., to benefit the organization, to help a friend) were influenced by what they perceived as the predominant organizational culture and reward structure. Nonetheless, there were also considerable variations in employee perceptions. Some of this variation appeared to be a function of employees’ position in the organizational hierarchy, their functional role, and the subculture they occupied within the firm.3 Lack of Adequate Rewards and Recognition The majority of interview participants cited the absence of organizational rewards and recognition as major barriers to CPG employees’ willingness to share and seek knowledge across divisional boundaries. Employees at all levels described an incentive system in which performance ratings were based on immediate results, such as the amount of products sold. “We are so focused on results and . . . are measured on results . . . and nowhere, anywhere, does it say you should share knowledge . . . and you will be rewarded for it” (market research director). In addition to the absence of rewards, several employees saw the reluctance to share as stemming from concerns that other employees would benefit from the information. While . . . it would be great if we shared information, there is also this kind of thing that I am the one who spent all this time and energy and effort to figure out how to do the research and how to get the information and how to do this project and now I am handing it to you. And it is going to be really frustrating if in the end of you get something . . . I am not going to get any credit for having done all of that work. (marketing director)

338


At the time of these interviews, CPG leadership had publicly discussed the need for greater “boundarylessness.” There was a great deal of variability in interviewees’ opinions as to whether CPG should strive to achieve greater communication among its divisions. For instance, a human resources director viewed the lack of cross-divisional communication as one of the great, silly, great comedies of this whole thing . . . everyone is incented to reinvent the wheel . . . surely there would be a reason for new products groups in each division to get together on a fairly regular basis. (Instead of) “if we had known something we are going to keep it secret from you, and secondly it will help our incentive.” Which to me is really problematic.

In contrast, a marketing director saw value in prevailing cultural norms. Where we score really poorly on our organizational climate study thing is boundarylessness. Boundarylessness is always the lowest thing on the division . . . but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is a bad thing. Our culture is we don’t practice boundarylessness that much but the flip side of that is passion and drive and ownership for your business but I think those things are opposed to one another, the ownership of your business. I think for that to come up something else has to be down.

The case study of TeenShare, a community of practice designed to facilitate cross-divisional knowledge exchange about teenage consumers, illustrates the problem of trying to successfully implement a knowledge-sharing initiative in an organizational culture that, despite the efforts of highly committed individual employees, has not made a clear commitment to provide nontrivial rewards and recognition for interunit knowledge transfer. Communities of practice are grass-roots networks where members exchange expertise and ideas in a particular domain. They are widely acknowledged to be an effective way to increase knowledge flow between disparate parts of organizations (Breu & Hemingway, 2002; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Lesser & Storck, 2001; Wenger & Snyder, 2000) and to promote collective learning, which is more likely to result in knowledge that is collectively accepted compared to knowledge acquired by individual learning processes (Huysman & de Wit, 2003). The TeenShare community of practice was created by several assistant managers and was championed by an officer in the organization. Its leader, a marketing manager, worked in a division (Drinks), whose president emphasized the need for his employees “to share information and learning and knowledge with appropriate other groups in the company.” This particular president created an “Owl” award to recognize employees who exemplified the “core value” of boundarylessness. As he explained, For example, Mary Jones may be winning an award for great brand stewardship in Pop! and the reason why she is winning the award is she stayed true to the equity and whatever and worked in a boundaryless way by sharing her learning with the


339

Candy people as a way of an example how to successfully steward a brand. . . . So it is becoming kind of a cultural thing within the [Drinks] organization.

Indeed, this president awarded the Owl award to the leader of TeenShare to acknowledge her contribution to boundarylessness. However, CPG leadership did not all share this president’s support for TeenShare and the larger goal of engendering cross-divisional knowledge sharing. For instance, a vice-president of Candy stated, “TeenShare isn’t a good use of people’s time. . . . If people are doing their job they’ll know what they need to know to do their job.” She went on to explain that she doesn’t promote information sharing between divisions because there is “not enough time.” The founders of TeenShare encountered organizational barriers that also hindered their efforts. For example, according to the marketing manager who founded TeenShare, they were told that they could not move forward, until every single leader had bought in, had had the one on one presentation and had had their chance to shape it. And if you have ever tried to get on the calendars of every single director of the teen business, every single president of the teen business in the company, I mean that was a barrier. . . . Once we got on their calendar, it actually went really well. But then the problem became, the people that were doing these presentations took a hit for how much time this was taking in their job. That they should have been focusing on other things that would get cases on the sheet, that they would get credit for, so it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. That if you tell people you can do this, but it can’t take too much time, but if you do this you have to do it this way, and by the way, this takes a lot of time.

The manager who led the TeenShare community of practice received mixed signals regarding her efforts. Despite the fact that she was given the Owl award by the president of her division, and had the support of a corporate officer and several human resource directors, she also received a particularly low performance rating from her manager, which she believed was a consequence of her participation in TeenShare. This low performance rating ultimately contributed to her decision to leave the organization. The manager’s experience and other feedback from leaders served as a signal to employees about the costs of engaging in visible efforts to challenge the status quo and promote interdivisional knowledge sharing. According to this employee, “other people in TeenShare are not mentioning the work they are doing in TeenShare, keeping it under the radar screen deliberately because they know for a fact that they would get flack for it.” Not surprisingly, the TeenShare community of practice disbanded, fewer than 2 years after its emergence. Interdivisional Competition Another major barrier to interdivisional knowledge flow at CPG was a culture in which employees identified more with their division than with the organization as a whole. Interestingly, this occurred despite the practice of periodically rotating

340


employees through different divisions. According to a human resources director, “it is basically on a Friday you could be in Drinks and on Monday you are in Candy and everything I learned in Drinks I have forgotten and sort of don’t care about.” This relative identification with one’s division as opposed to the larger organization seemed to be precipitated by organizational norms that encouraged competitiveness between divisions, in which employees were encouraged to “beat the performance” of other divisions. A marketing manager told us about competition between divisions for resources and how that affected knowledge sharing. In this example, the scarce resource was a cereal product (Puffs) that also was used in a candy product (Puffs Bars). It was like, oh no, don’t give them any information because at the time Puffs pieces, the actual production of them, was at a maximum output. So the divisions were arguing whether Puffs Bars got the supply or Cereal got the supply. . . . So it was like all this bickering . . . and Candy wanted products to boost Candy’s volume and not [Cereal’s]. No sharing of information. We didn’t even share plans . . . you should have seen the catfights that went on behind directors’ doors.

This marketing manager observed that “the competitive spirit is alive and well at CPG. It is like we consider our own brands competitors.” Likewise, a market research director said she knew “people who have been punished for sharing information that was from one division to another division, and we are kind of competing, and we don’t want you to share that kind of stuff.” A director of marketing suggested that top executives at CPG sometimes set up situations that engendered competition, despite an avowed desire for boundarylessness. I think at the highest levels they would value being boundaryless and collaborating and using others work. But yet they also create environments where folks are competing. They will have two groups working on similar projects. Hoping that one will get there sooner . . . I think they would appreciate collaborating because it is efficient and it is productive. But yet on some of the projects we have you can see how they are strategically designing it to be inefficient . . . know two groups working on a similar beverage . . . two groups working on a similar candy.

Several employees thought that higher level employees (e.g., presidents and directors) were more likely to view other divisions as competitors than lower level employees (e.g., assistant managers) and, consequently, were less likely to share knowledge outside their division. What happens at the assistant manager level, you find plenty of sharing, and the higher you got up the line, the more . . . there was a little bit, well, who is going to get the volume credit for this idea if it launches . . . it wasn’t that I think people were deliberately not sharing information. But they sure weren’t going out of their way to keep everybody else informed of their latest stuff . . . they want to get the Star award. They want their division to get the 5. If Candy doesn’t get a 5 because Drinks launched a product and vice versa . . . and (it’s) not a lot of fun to go tell your


341

friend . . . well I did a lot of research that contributed to somebody else doing something. (director of marketing)

Some employees attributed greater interdivisional competitiveness among higher level employees to the fact that those employees received larger bonuses (incentives), which were partially a function of their divisional performance rating, calculated by averaging an employee’s individual-, divisional-, and organizational performance ratings. If you have assistant marketing manager friends doing similar things you will share information. When dollars start getting attached to it, and you are marketing manager and your bonus depends on it that changes things. Especially at the director level. (marketing manager)

Indeed, a common perception of how bonuses were awarded was of a zero-sum game, in which a particularly strong performance by another division would hurt one’s own divisional rating, resulting in a lower bonus for that employee. However, because each division’s ratings were based upon how well the division achieved its financial objectives and were independent of the performance of other divisions, one’s division’s rating would not be hurt by the stellar performance of another. In fact, a strong performance by another division actually would benefit employees from another division because that performance would contribute to the organizational rating, which comprised one third of the individual’s bonus. In this way, the divisional ratings appeared to be more symbolic than utilitarian, enabling members of a division to distinguish themselves and maintain a positive ingroup identity. DISCUSSION

The studies presented in this article demonstrate how using a functional approach to motivation can help elucidate the myriad of reasons underlying employees’willingness to engage in interunit knowledge exchange. In the quantitative survey, when multiple sources of motivation were examined in a single integrative framework, workers’ willingness to share and seek knowledge beyond their immediate work group was shown to be influenced by individual-, interpersonal-, relational- and group-level motives. Motivational barriers to knowledge transfer included a lack of extrinsic rewards, stronger levels of group versus organizational identification, reciprocity norms, and the view of knowledge as a means of achieving upward organizational mobility. Results of the qualitative study illustrated how features of the organization influenced workers’ motivations to share and seek knowledge across boundaries. For example, although CPG leaders had publicly espoused the virtues of boundarylessness and had championed various knowledge-transfer initiatives, the organizational norms and practices of CPG did not adequately reward employees who engaged in these activities. These findings are consistent with reports of

342


managers in a recent survey who perceived little reward for sharing their knowledge (KPMG, 2000). Moreover, the traditional, hierarchical structure of the firm was at odds with the types of “horizontal organizations” and “new organizational forms and management technologies” that have been found to facilitate interunit communication (Tucker et al., 1996). In this particular context, it perhaps was not surprising that well-intentioned knowledge-transfer initiatives, such as the creation of the TeenShare community of practice, proved to be unsuccessful. The case of TeenShare also illustrates how an organization that does not sufficiently support interunit knowledge exchange (or which sends mixed organizational signals as to its value) may lose those employees who are highly motivated to engage in those behaviors. As is the case in many organizations (e.g., Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000), management practices and cultural norms at CPG appeared to foster interdivisional competition and engender among employees a stronger identification with their division relative to the firm as a whole. Moreover, as employees moved up through the organizational hierarchy, they appeared to identify more strongly with their division and to become more motivated to behave in ways that benefited their division rather than the organization. Although objectively, the incentive system was structured in such a way that individual employees would benefit from other divisions’ success because that success contributed to the organizations’ overall performance, employees were nonetheless concerned that they not be “beaten” by other divisions. CPG’s culture seemed to promote the belief, endemic in many U.S. companies, in which competition is equated with success (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000), despite extensive evidence that “superior performance not only does not require competition; it usually seems to require its absence” (Kohn, 1986). LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The studies presented had several limitations. First, the data were collected within a single organization, limiting their generalizability (although the study included employees from diverse divisions, functions, and hierarchical levels). For this reason, these studies should be considered exploratory, suggesting hypotheses to be tested in other types of organizations. Future research should be conducted to determine the extent to which the particular motivations identified in this study were a function of features that were specific to CPG. For example, the lack of association between communal motives and knowledge sharing may have been a function of CPG’s hierarchical culture, a type of cultural orientation that is less conducive to informal, cross-organizational communication than horizontal cultures (Bhagat, Harveston, & Triandis, 2002). In a similar vein, the quantitative study was limited by its inability to examine the impact of organizational factors on employees’ willingness to exchange knowledge beyond their work groups, due to an insufficient sample size (although some insight was provided by the qualitative findings). Again, future research should be


343

conducted—either within a single firm with multiple units or among a number of different firms—to determine the extent to which features of the organization, such as culture, structure, and incentive system, influence the specific motives predictive of knowledge transfer. It would also be useful to empirically test the hypothesis that interventions and practices aimed at increasing knowledge exchange will be more effective to the extent that they are targeted to the specific motivations that are most salient for workers in the particular organization. A potentially fruitful line of inquiry would be an examination of how the individualism-collectivism dimension of culture affects the types of motives that underlie people’s decisions to exchange knowledge. The individualism-collectivism distinction is considered by a number of scholars to be the key feature that distinguishes how cultures operate (see Triandis, 1998, for a review). In individualist cultures, such as the United States, independence is valued and people tend to be motivated by their own desires and needs. In contrast, in collectivist cultures (which characterize many non-Western societies), interdependence is emphasized and people tend to be motivated by the needs and desires of the group (e.g., Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998; Triandis, 1998). Accordingly, people from collectivist cultures tend to perform better when they are motivated by group goals whereas those from individualistic cultures do better when motivated by individual goals. For instance, Japanese teams who were given team goals outperformed Japanese who were given individual goals (Matsui, Kakuyama, & Onglatco, 1987). Collectivists are also less likely than individualists to be concerned with “rationality” and cost-benefit analyses (Bhaghat et al., 2002; Triandis, 1998). Hence, one might expect workers from collectivist cultures to be more strongly influenced by communal- and group-level motives, whereas workers from individualist cultures might be expected to be more strongly influenced by extrinsic rewards and exchange motives. In addition, because communication tends to occur within ingroups for members of collectivist cultures (Hofstede, 1991), the level at which those workers define their group membership (e.g., in terms of their regional company versus the global corporation) is likely to have a stronger effect on their willingness to engage in knowledge transfer relative to workers from individualist cultures. In an era of multinational corporations and global cooperative ventures, research investigating cultural variations in motivation to transfer knowledge will be critical in ensuring that organizational practices designed to increase knowledge flow are maximally effective. Arguably, the most serious limitation of the quantitative study was the use of self-reported hours spent sharing and seeking knowledge as the primary dependent variable. Although self-reported behaviors have a long history in psychological research, they bring with it the problems of (a) accuracy of self-report (Wilson & LaFleur, 1995) and (b) common method variance, in which significant associations may be simply due to measurement error rather than represent an actual relation. Hours spent seeking and sharing knowledge were chosen as dependent variables because they had the virtue of representing a common and valuable currency (i.e., time) shared by employees in the many different functions who participated in the

344


survey. Nonetheless, it also brings some conceptual confusion, which should be addressed in future research by utilizing dependent measures that assess specific sharing and seeking behaviors, preferably including measures that do not rely on self-report. Future research should also examine motivations that influence the quality as well as quantity of knowledge shared, such as the extent to which the sharer manipulates, distorts, or favorably presents the knowledge (e.g., Larson & King, 1996; O’Reilly, 1978). Results from the qualitative study provided some exploratory ideas about how different motives may influence quality of knowledge exchanged. For example, divisional competition appeared to be associated with partial sharing, in which general knowledge was shared but “insights” more closely linked to specific projects were hoarded. Acquisitive and protective impression management concerns seemed to lead to the “spinning” of knowledge in order to present the information in a positive light and to avoid any information that might be embarrassing or reflect poorly on the individual. By contrast, sharing in the context of close relationships, with higher levels of trust, appeared to be associated with less distortion of information. As a corporate director explained, “The real truth comes through by relationships here.” Given the ramifications of receiving partial or distorted knowledge, future research should more rigorously test these hypothesized relations between different motives to share knowledge and the quality of the information that gets shared. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Several practical recommendations follow from this work. Because sharing knowledge can be a time-consuming task that leaves employees less time to pursue their own work, it is important that organizations send clear and consistent messages about the types of knowledge-exchange activities that they want to encourage, and provide adequate credit, recognition, and time for employees who engage in those activities. For example, management might actively support individuals who lead or actively participate in communities of practice by providing a reduced workload and recognizing those activities in performance evaluations (e.g., Haas, Aulbur, & Thakar, 2003). This can help alleviate the social dilemma that occurs when employees, who behave in ways that benefit the collective, are downgraded relative to “free-riders” who, because they do not engage in actions that benefit the larger organization, have more time to devote to their individual projects (e.g., Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Another step in promoting intrafirm knowledge transfer would be to increase employees’ identification with the firm and to promote cooperation between business units. Ample research has shown that encouraging individuals to focus on shared or “superordinate” goals can successfully reduce intergroup competition and reduce ingroup bias (e.g., Brewer & Brown, 1998; Gaertner et al., 2000). This might take the form of emphasizing external rather than internal competition, as


345

Apple Computer did in 1984 when it used the threat of IBM to unify workers to rally against a common “enemy” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Companies also might award bonuses based on the performance of the entire organization rather than the individual subunit, (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000a) and hire, reward, and promote people who cooperate and work across divisional boundaries. Creating the conditions that engender knowledge transfer entails significant structural and cultural changes by top leadership, which will require leaders to be convinced that the benefits of knowledge transfer outweigh the costs. In the absence of this commitment, it is unlikely that attempts to increase knowledge flow will succeed. Leaders should be cautious about publicly touting the virtues of “knowledge sharing” without a substantive commitment to change, as this may result in the failure of well-intentioned knowledge transfer initiatives, bringing with it lowered employee morale and the potential for resistance against future knowledge-transfer initiatives. NOTES 1. The interview guide included topic areas of interest to the organization that were not related to the major research question. 2. The study sponsor at the consumer-packaged-goods organization (CPG) did not think it would be appropriate to provide an incentive to higher level employees. 3. In the results presented, all identifying details such as names of divisions and products have been changed.

REFERENCES Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150-169. Bhagat, R. S., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 204-221. Breu, K., & Hemingway, C. (2002). Collaborative processes and knowledge creation in communities-ofpractice. Collaborative Processes and Knowledge Creation, 11, 147-153. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 554-594). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23, 687-710. Cady, S. H., & Fandt, P. M. (2001). Managing impressions with information: A field study of organizational realities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 180-204. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., et al., P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530.

346


Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Miene, P., & Hanyen, J.A. (1994). Matching messages to motives in persuasion: A functional approach to promoting volunteerism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1129-1149. Darr, E., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41, 1750-1762. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. DePaulo, B., & Fisher, J. (1980). The cost of asking for help. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 2335. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345-367. Feldman, M., & March, J. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171-186. Fisher, R., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. (1997). Enhancing communication between marketing and engineering: The moderating role of relative functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61, 54-70. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 915998). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Houlette, M., (2000). The Common Ingroup Identity Model for reducing intergroup bias: Progress and challenges. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 133-148). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Galbraith, C. S. (1990). Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management Review, 32, 56-70. Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555. Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321-338. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000a). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000b). Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42, 71. Haas, R., Aulbur, W., & Thakar, S. (2003). Enabling communities of practice at EADS Airbus. In M. S. Ackerman, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management (pp. 179198). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 82-111. Hickson, D., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schenck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies’ theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 216-229. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88-115. Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2003). A critical evaluation of knowledge management practices. In M. S. Ackerman, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.). Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management (pp. 2755). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Irmer, B. E., Bordia, P., & Abusah, D. (2002, August). Evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits of interpersonal and database knowledge sharing. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Denver, CO. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383-397.


347

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. KPMG. (2000). Knowledge management research report. New York: KPMG Consulting Reports. Larson, E. W., & King, J. B. (1996). The systemic distortion of information: An ongoing challenge to management. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 49-61. Lavine, H., Burgess, D., Snyder, M., Transue, J. E., Sullivan, J., Haney, B., et al. (1999). Threat, authoritarianism and voting: An investigation of personality and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 337-347. Lee, F. (1997). When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 72, 336-363. Lee, F. (2002). The social costs of seeking help. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 17-35. Lesser, E. L., & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 4 (4), 831-841. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123. Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. L. (1987). Effects of feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407-415. Monge, P., Edwards, J., & Kirste, K. (1978). The determinants of communication and communication structure in large organizations: A review of the research. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 311-331). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Moreland, R., & Levine, J. (2000). Socialization in organizations and groups. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 60-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 671-686. O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A laboratory and field approach. Human Relations, 31, 173-193. Orlikowski, W. (1993). Learning from notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. Information Society, 9, 237-250. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 13, 249-273. Pan, S., & Scarbrough, H. (1998). A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2, 55-56. Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10, 111-131. Perlow, L., & Weeks, J. (2002). Who’s helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 345-361. Pettigrew, A. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Princeton Survey Research Associates. (1994). Worker representation and participation survey: Report on the findings. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Survey Research Associates. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306-1314. Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40, 80-89. Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2000). The relationship of communication, ethical work climate, and trust to commitment and innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 313–328. Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1998). Understanding personality and social behavior: A functionalist strategy. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 635-679). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

348


Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27-43. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9-27. Triandis, H. C. (1998). Vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism: Theory and research implications for international comparative management. Advances in International Comparative Management, 12, 7-35. Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “competition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13, 179-190. Tucker, M. L., Meyer, G. D., & Westerman, J. W. (1996). Organizational communication: Development of internal strategic competitive advantage. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 51-69. van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E.C.M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73, 137-147. Walsh, J., & Ungson, G. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57-91. Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000, January/February). Communities of Practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139-145. Wilson, T. D., & LaFleur, S. J. (1995). Knowing what you’ll do: Effects of analyzing reasons on self-prediction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 21-35.