The Influence of Feedback and Expert Status in Knowledge Sharing Dilemmas

Abstract

Groups and organisations set cooperative goals for their members, yet in reality some team members contribute more than others to these goals. Experts, in particular, face a social dilemma: from the group's perspective they should share their knowledge, whereas individually they are better off not sharing, because acquiring knowledge is costly and they would give up a competitive advantage. Two experiments (N1 = 96, N2 = 192) tested the hypothesis, derived from indirect reciprocity theory, that experts contribute more if their status is being recognised. Expert status was manipulated under different performance feedback conditions and the impact on people's contributions in two different knowledge sharing tasks was analysed. In both studies, experts contributed more when feedback was individualised and public, ensuring both individual status rewards and public recognition. In contrast, novices contributed more when performance feedback was collective, regardless of whether it was public or private feedback. Novices did not have to fear negative performance evaluations under group feedback and could gain in social status as members of a successful group. Social value orientation moderated expert contributions in Study 2, with proself‐oriented experts being particularly susceptible to reputation gains. The studies contribute to the neglected aspect of motivation in knowledge sharing dilemmas where collective and individual interests are not necessarily aligned.

The Relationship Between Dispositional Envy and Knowledge Sharing

“…In this study, the findings indicate a negative relationship between dispositional envy and knowledge sharing. In this context, the findings of this study coincide with the findings of other studies (Galetta et al, 2003: p.9;Marks et al 2008: Moser, 2017;Cyr and Choo, 2010), investigated the knowledge sharing and social value orientation.…”

“…Orientation" model and individuals with dispositional envy were defined as proselfs based on the studies in the literature. Many studies (Galetta et al, 2003: p.9;Marks et al 2008: p.62-63;Balau and Utz, 2017;Moser, 2017;Cyr and Choo, 2010) suggest that proselfs are reluctant to share knowledge. Galetta et al (2003) indicate that proselfs don't share their valuable knowledge with other group members.…”

“…Several studies (Galetta et al, 2003: p.9;Marks et al 2008: p.62-63;Balau and Utz, 2017;Moser, 2017;Cyr and Choo, 2010) indicate that proselfs are reluctant to share their knowledge. According to the results of Galetta et al's (2003) study, proselfs don't share their valuable knowledge with other group members.…”

“…The proselfs in expert status share their knowledge considering that they will increase their own outcomes from this behavior. Moser (2017) indicates that proselfs in expert positions think strategically, share their knowledge for the recognition of their expertise and therefore to increase their power in the business. As indicated above in several studies (Galetta et al, 2003: p.9;Marks et al 2008: p.62-63;Balau and Utz, 2017;Cyr and Choo, 2010) it is found that proselfs are reluctant to share knowledge.…”

Antecedents of team innovation in health care teams

“…A second important implication is that information sharing and helping behaviour need to be explicitly rewarded by managers as part of their feedback to both the team as well to individual team members. Recent research shows that feedback can play an important role in motivating experts to share their expertise in teams and in particular when sharing it with less experienced team members (Moser, ), which is an important aspect of helping behaviour in teams.…”