Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost

Abstract

Purpose -This paper's aim is to examine the influence of perceived cost of sharing knowledge and affective trust in colleagues on the relationship between affective commitment and knowledge sharing.Design/methodology/approach -The methodology used was a survey of 496 employees from 15 organizations across ten industries.Findings -Affective trust in colleagues moderates the relationship between affective commitment and knowledge sharing and the relationship between cost of knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing.Research limitations/implications -Future researchers should operationalize the perceived cost of knowledge sharing construct to include other potential group barriers; for instance, politics and organizational barriers, management commitment and lack of trust.Practical implications -The findings of this study suggest that employees who value social relationships and social resources tend to view knowledge as a collectively owned commodity. As such, their knowledge sharing behavior reflects the model of reciprocal social exchanges.Social implications -The results of this study indicate that an organizational culture that encourages affect-based trust between colleagues will facilitate knowledge sharing.Originality/value -The paper bridges the gap between the literature on knowledge sharing, perceived cost of knowledge sharing, affective organizational commitment and trust in a single model.

The Effect of Intellectual Capital on Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge Sharing

“…In addition, [106] mentioned that difficult issues can be addressed through information sharing as many organizations are resource poor but information rich. However, sharing knowledge is not an easy process due to the fact that knowledge is created and stored within the employees of an organization [45] [107], and that it requires the willingness to collaborate and share knowledge with others [108] [109]. Unwillingness to share information can lead to the sharing of inaccurate, incomplete, and false information [108] which is disastrous to organizations.…”

Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Leakage on Innovative Performance

“…Many researcher agreed upon these finding, (e.g. Martinez-Noya et al, 2013;Casimir et al, 2012;Ahmad et al, 2014;Ritala et al2015).…”

“…Despite the benefits of sharing knowledge internally, sharing knowledge with customers, and sharing knowledge with competitors on innovative performance (Rosenkopf and Almeida, 2003;Barachini, 2009;Sáenz et al, 2012), this exchange means there is a potential leak in the sensitive Organizational knowledge to other parties (Martinez-Noya et al, 2013;Casimir et al, 2012;Ahmad et al, 2014), accordingly, this leakage will harm and negatively affect the positive impact of knowledge sharing on innovation performance (Process, product and service, and market). We formalize the arguments in the following last group of hypothesis: …”

“…The leakage of most important business process is the biggest obstacles that prevent knowledge sharing and collaboration (Martinez-Noya et al, 2013). Many recent studies in knowledge sharing have focused on the negative aspects and concerns associated with the participation of knowledge, attributable to the effects of indirect leakage of knowledge and the cost associated with that leakage (Casimir et al, 2012;Foss et al, 2010;Husted and Michailova, 2010). Strategically, many studies have been conducted to explore and clarify the reasons that make the collaboration across supply chain facilitating participation in various resources including knowledge.…”

Influence of Organizational and Technological Aspects on the Knowledge Sharing Behaviour in the Vietnam’s University Context

“…This IT-related scale is largely adapted from the work of Lee and Choi (2003) and Gold et al (2001). Job demand scale consists of three items, which are largely based on the scale used by Casimir et al (2012).…”