1 / 17

Share My Knowledge Let Me See What You Have Done for Me: Investigation of Knowledge Sharing from Social Exchange Viewp

7/8/2012. 2. Worker Initiated Sharing. ??it is clear that willingness of persons to contribute efforts to the cooperative system is indispensable?.Willingness in the present connection, means self-abnegation, the surrender of control of personalconduct, the depersonalization of personal action

ova
Download Presentation

Share My Knowledge Let Me See What You Have Done for Me: Investigation of Knowledge Sharing from Social Exchange Viewp

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Share My Knowledge? Let Me See What You Have Done for Me: Investigation of Knowledge Sharing from Social Exchange Viewpoint Seokhwa Yun - Mark Allyn - David Radosevich - A. Byung Min Presentation to 4th GCBE Oxford UK June 28, 2005

    2. 7/9/2012 2 Worker Initiated Sharing

    3. 7/9/2012 3 Introduction Knowledge Source of competitive advantage (Grant, 1996) Teams (Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001) Knowledge teams Teams of individuals who apply "theoretical and analytical knowledge, acquired through formal education" to solve team-related tasks (Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997). Knowledge Sharing Individuals are primary movers of knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994) Knowledge is created through communication [sharing] of individual knowledge among co-workers (Senge, 1990) Sharing Knowledge? Unwillingness (e.g., Fisher & Fisher, 1998; Tobin, 1998) Expert power (French & Raven, 1959 ) Ownership (Szulanski, 1996) Research Question What are the social foundations of knowledge sharing behavior?

    4. 7/9/2012 4 Our Framework

    5. 7/9/2012 5

    6. 7/9/2012 6 Causal Variables for Today Co-worker Support (CS) Supervisor Support (SS) Exchange Ideology (EI) Learning Goal Orientation (GOL)

    7. 7/9/2012 7 Definitions Co-worker support (CS) – the extent to which co-workers are supportive of the focal employee (“Person”). Supervisory support (SS) – the extent to which Person’s supervisor is supportive of ego and is approachable. Exchange ideology (EI) – exchange ideology “refers to employees’ belief that it is appropriate and useful to base their concern with the organization’s welfare and their work effort on how favorably they have been treated by the organization….the [strict] application of the reciprocity norm… Learning goal orientation (GOL) – Person’s goal to develop new skills and master new situations.

    8. 7/9/2012 8 Some Typical Scale Items Co-Worker Support (CS): “My co-workers seem willing to listen to my problems” Supervisor Support (SS): “My supervisor seems to be rather distant and unapproachable” Exchange Ideology (EI): “An employee who is treated badly by a company should work less hard” Learning Goal Orientation (GOL): “I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from” Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KS) “I freely provide other members with hard-to-find knowledge or specialized skills”

    9. 7/9/2012 9 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Learning orientation is positively related to knowledge sharing. Hypothesis 2 : Exchange ideology is negatively related to knowledge sharing . Hypothesis 3: Supports from supervisor and coworker(s) have positive relationship with knowledge sharing . Hypothesis 4: The relationship between support and knowledge sharing is moderated by exchange ideology. More specifically, the positive effect of support on knowledge sharing is stronger for individuals with high exchange ideology than for those with low exchange ideology .

    10. 7/9/2012 10 Research Model

    11. 7/9/2012 11 Methods Data Collection Survey Participants Three companies at Northeastern US 307 employees (response rate = 81%) Measures Learning Orientation 5 items adopted from Brett and VandeWalle (1999) Exchange Ideology 8 items (Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987). Support Supervisory: 8-item scale (Tsui et al., 1997) Coworker: 8-item scale (adopted from Tsui et al., 1997) Knowledge sharing 7 items from Faraj and Sproull (2000) and Durham (1997) All Cronbach’s as > .85 Data Analysis Hierarchical Regression Analysis

    12. 7/9/2012 12 Results

    13. 7/9/2012 13 Results (Cont’d)

    14. 7/9/2012 14 Felt Obligation as a Driver of Sharing Felt Obligation (FO) “is a prescriptive belief regarding whether one should care about the organization’s well-being and should help the organization reach its goals [Eisenberger, et al. 2001] Established via reciprocity norm in return for organizational support Typical Item: “I would feel guilty if I did not meet the organization’s performance standards”

    15. 7/9/2012 15 An Alternative Model

    16. 7/9/2012 16 Summary of Findings & Implications Learning orientation and knowledge sharing finding Learning orientation is positively related to knowledge sharing Implication Recruit for learning goal orientation Emphasize learning aspect of work Exchange ideology and knowledge sharing finding Exchange ideology is negatively related to knowledge sharing Implication Avoid institutions (rules) that encourage reciprocation wariness Interaction effects between coworker support and exchange ideology on knowledge sharing Implication Supportive co-workers will induce sharing by those with strong exchange ideologies Create climate where co-workers support and care about each other

    17. 7/9/2012 17 Limitations Study is cross-sectional at a point in time Limits our ability to claim causal inferences We need to do longitudinal work plus some experimental treatment Study confined to limited sample of businesses Present analysis does not consider some potentially important variables Task Interdependence Ego’s efficacy Trust in supervisor and coworkers

More Related