No abstract

No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is using competing hypotheses (a spillover hypothesis, based on Engagement Theory, and a provisioning hypothesis, based on Adaptive Cost Theory) to help explain why employees become disengaged from knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach – Employed knowledge workers completed an online questionnaire regarding their job characteristics, their general health and wellness, perceived organizational support, job engagement and disengagement from knowledge sharing. Findings – The findings provide empirical support for Adaptive Cost Theory and illustrate the relationship between Engagement Theory and the Disengagement from Knowledge Sharing. In particular, this research illustrates the importance of health and wellness for preventing disengagement from knowledge sharing. In addition, the findings introduce a new finding of tensions between job engagement and knowledge sharing, which supports knowledge workers’ complaints of “being too busy” to share. Research limitations/implications – This study uses cross-sectional methodology; however, the participants are employed and in the field. Given the theoretical arguments that disengagement from knowledge sharing should be either short term or transient, future research should follow-up with diary methods to capture this to confirm the study’s conclusions. Practical implications – The findings of this study provide some insight for practitioners on how to prevent disengagement from knowledge sharing. New predictors and an interesting tension between job engagement and knowledge sharing are identified. Originality/value – This study examines an alternative explanation for the lack of knowledge sharing in organizations, and uses competing theories to identify the reasons for the disengagement from knowledge sharing.

No abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper to examine full knowledge sharing (KS) and partial KS in order to test the proposition that they are separate behaviors with different characteristics, risks, and motivations for the informer and subsequently different predictors. Design/methodology/approach -Employed knowledge workers completed two questionnaires over a two-week period regarding their attitudes, situational factors, individual differences, and KS behaviors with their close colleagues in their workplace.Findings -Results support the proposition that they are different albeit related behaviors. Full KS is enabled by intentions for full KS. Partial KS is enabled by the uniqueness of the knowledge, interpersonal distrust of close colleagues, and inhibited by perceived value of knowledge. Management support, interpersonal trust and distrust enable intentions for both full and partial KS, then propensity to share further enables full KS, and psychological ownership further enables intentions for partial KS.Research limitations/implications -The findings from the study suggest that researchers should specify which sharing behavior they are examining (full or partial). Future research should also examine the outcomes of these two behaviors to see whether the assumed benefits of sharing knowledge apply to both of them.Practical implications -The findings of the study provide some insight for practitioners on what motivates full versus partial KS.Originality/value -The study challenges the assumption that KS is a single behavior, and starts to parse out the complexities within the KS literature with respect to predictors of actual KS behaviors.