A Multilevel Investigation of the Motivational Mechanisms Underlying Knowledge Sharing and Performance

Abstract

This study draws on three different, yet complementary, theories of motivation, which we combine in an interactive manner, to explain the mechanisms that underlie the exchange between knowledge providers and recipients and ultimately impact performance. More specifically, we use incentive, goal-setting-social cognitive, and social motivation theories to examine knowledge sharing within dyads and its influence on individual performance. One hundred and twenty participants functioning as interdependent manager dyads completed a strategic decision-making simulation. Hierarchical regression and random coefficient modeling techniques were used to test hypothesized relationships. Results demonstrated that the effect of group-oriented incentive systems on the knowledge provider was enhanced when more positive norms for knowledge sharing existed among dyad members. The recipient’s self-efficacy had a stronger relationship with performance goals when the recipient trusted the provider. Finally, self-set goals and knowledge sharing had both direct and interactive effects on individual performance. We argue that these findings constitute a useful advance in middle-range motivation (Landy and Becker 1987, Pinder 1984) theory pertaining to knowledge sharing and utilization.

To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists

“…Resistance to information sharing is often explained by the relationship between the parties to the potential exchange, including efforts to exert control over others in politicized environments (Feldman 1988), lack of trust or status distance between the exchange partners (Levin andCross 2004, Phillips et al 2009), low psychological safety in work groups (Edmondson 1999), or competition within and across firms (Larsson et al 1998, Hansen et al 2005). The present study similarly emphasizes willingness rather than ability to share (Quigley et al 2007), but extends prior research by drawing attention to the importance of social context beyond the immediate parties to the exchange in influencing sharing decisions. In particular, members of a reference group can influence the sharing decisions of others who do belong to the same group or even interact with them.…”

“…If an organization has a "culture of hoarding" (Boisot 1998), withholding is likely to be pervasive, no matter what structural barriers to sharing are eliminated. Even in an organization with a strong firm-wide culture committed to knowledge sharing and incentives in place to support it, local counter-cultures of withholding in particular offices or work groups can be very influential for their members (Quigley et al 2007). The findings of our study suggest that the mechanisms that explain intra-organizational learning derive not only from individual characteristics and structural conditions that inhibit knowledge sharing, but also from the norms of the groups in which individuals, teams, and organizations are embedded.…”

An Empirical Study on Influencing Factors of Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Learning Community

“…Quigley and other scholars believe that knowledge sharing activities in organization possible occur only under good interpersonal relations, communication and interaction between members of the organization can promote them to share knowledge, and interactive communication skills of members should be deemed one of the core abilities to promote knowledge sharing [7]. Interaction is the premise of the knowledge sharing of virtual learning community, no inter- action among members of the community would have no knowledge sharing.…”

Measuring Knowledge

“…All items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Similarly, Quigley, Tesluk, Locke, and Bartol (2007) concentrated in their research, among others, on norms supporting knowledge sharing and they used a 10-item questionnaire. Items were evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale.…”