Knowledge Sharing in Cross-Functional Teams and its Antecedents: Role of Mutual Trust as a Moderator

Verma, Jyoti; Sinha, Anamika

doi:10.1142/s0219649216500337

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed management and OB scholars have started to express a greater interest toward behavioral issues regarding what a fitting context for KMS and innovativeness should be, as evident from the multiple calls and editorials (Sergeeva and Andreeva, 2016;Michailova, 2011;Bamberger, 2008;Johns, 2006). In this paper, following Ghoschal and Barlett (1994), Cabrera et al (2006), Wang and Noe (2010), Huang et al (2011), Lin et al (2012, Schmitz et al (2014), Verma and Sinha (2016), Günsel et al (2019) and Wang et al (2018), we identify top management support, mutual trust and reward systems as the primary characteristics of organizational context. So, we consider organizational context as a three-dimensional concept composed of top management support, mutual trust and reward systems, and we describe how each of these dimensions is related to KMS and firm innovativeness.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Mutual trust is the joint expectation of positive attitudes and behaviors of people toward each other (Curado and Vieira, 2019). The extant literature abounds of evidence regarding the antecedent role of trust in KM (Li et al, 2019;Curado and Vieira, 2019;Ho et al, 2018;Rahman et al, 2018;Lei et al, 2019;Olaisen and Revang, 2017;Verma and Sinha, 2016;Al Hawari, 2012;McNeish and Mann, 2010;Akgün et al, 2005;Bakker et al, 2006;Davenport and Prusak, 1998). When trust exists, people are expected to be more willing to create, share and exploit useful knowledge (Zand, 1972).…”

Section: Mutual Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Building a fitting context for knowledge management and innovativeness

Günsel

Bozkurt

Mehtap

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In the hyper-dynamic business world of today, innovation has become the lifeblood of organizations. Knowledge management (KM) is widely considered an essential antecedent of innovation. However, very little empirical research has specifically addressed how KM is nurtured as support for innovation from a behavioral point of view. This paper aims to operationalize the characteristics of a fitting context – in terms of top management support, organizational rewards and mutual trust – and to clarify the role of organizational context on knowledge management strategies (KMS) and ultimately on firm innovativeness. Design/methodology/approach By studying 98 surveys from 23 companies from Technology Fast 50 list, based on using the partial least squares method, the authors find that this organizational context has a significant impact on the formulation and implementation of KMS. Findings Organizational/behavioral context has significant effects on the formulation and implementation of KMS as well as firm innovativeness. The results also demonstrate that the tacit KMS has a crucial impact on firm innovativeness. Originality/value From a behavioral perspective, this study empirically examines the role of organizational context (top management support, organizational rewards and mutual trust), KMS and firm innovativeness in a holistic manner in Turkey, a developing country. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no researcher has undergone those relationships in literature.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Mutual Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building a fitting context for knowledge management and innovativeness

Günsel

Bozkurt

Mehtap

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other generic implications, as noted in the introduction, refer to the advancement of knowledge about the construct “learning culture” which helps organisations in the process of development of learning environments (Gil and Carrillo, 2016), and consequently improves job satisfaction (Farradinna, 2016), development of innovation (Tajeddini and Trueman, 2016) and knowledge creation (Verma and Sinha, 2016), key elements in management decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relevance of information transfer in learning culture

Gil

Mataveli

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact of the processes of orientation and empowerment and the transfer of information in the learning culture. Design/methodology/approach The first hypothesis predicts that information mediates the relationship between orientation and empowerment processes and learning culture and the second hypothesis suggests that organisational size moderates the relationships between constructs. The empirical work is conducted in the wine industry in Spain through a structural equation analysis, partial least squares. Findings The hypothesis of mediation is confirmed; however, the hypothesis about size moderation is not confirmed. Practical implications The importance of the transfer of information in the foundation of a learning culture is highlighted and, therefore, its importance in the development of learning in organisations, especially in building learning organisations. Originality/value This research contributes to the literature on learning in organisations by sharing not only the characteristics that identify a learning culture, but also the mechanisms or processes through which a learning culture can be developed.

show abstract

“…It is defined as the extent to which team members are confident in one another (Hu, 2017). Trust is a precondition for exchanging behaviors (Buvik and Tvedt, 2017), particularly for the transfer of complex and tacit knowledge (Adler et al, 2008;Verma and Sinha, 2016). In other words, knowledge sharing is more likely to happen among individuals who trust each other (Verma and Sinha, 2016).…”

Section: Antecedents Of Team Learning In Interdisciplinary Research Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trust is a precondition for exchanging behaviors (Buvik and Tvedt, 2017), particularly for the transfer of complex and tacit knowledge (Adler et al, 2008;Verma and Sinha, 2016). In other words, knowledge sharing is more likely to happen among individuals who trust each other (Verma and Sinha, 2016). Reciprocal and iterative knowledge exchanges based on trust are also conducive to knowledge integration (Rauniar et al, 2019).…”

Section: Antecedents Of Team Learning In Interdisciplinary Research Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team learning in interdisciplinary research teams: antecedents and consequences

Zhang

Wang

2020

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Team learning is critical to interdisciplinary research teams (IDR teams) to use heterogeneous knowledge effectively. Nevertheless, team learning is rarely addressed in the IDR team literature. Also, few studies investigate the antecedents and consequences of team learning in IDR teams, leading to a lack of guidance for management practices. This study aims to investigate how team learning can be developed and how team learning influences team outcomes in IDR teams. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire survey on 304 members of 37 IDR teams in a research university in China is conducted. Data are analyzed using a partial least square structural equation modeling. Findings The results support most hypotheses in general. For the antecedent variables, task interdependence, trust and constructive conflict positively affect team learning. For the outcome variables, team learning improves shared mental models, coordination quality and team performance significantly. Additionally, task uncertainty positively moderates the team learning-coordination quality relation and team learning-team performance relation. However, this paper does not find support for the moderating role of task uncertainty on the team learning-shared mental models relation. Originality/value To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study investigating the antecedents and consequences of team learning in IDR teams. A multidimensional measurement of team learning for the IDR team context is developed. This study investigates how team behavioral factors influence team learning and the effect of team learning on shared mental models, coordination quality and team performance. This study also explores the contingency role of task uncertainty in the effects of team learning.

show abstract

Knowledge Sharing in Cross-Functional Teams and its Antecedents: Role of Mutual Trust as a Moderator

Cited by 9 publications

References 88 publications

Building a fitting context for knowledge management and innovativeness

Building a fitting context for knowledge management and innovativeness

The relevance of information transfer in learning culture

Team learning in interdisciplinary research teams: antecedents and consequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About