The more the better … or is it? The contradictory effects of HR practices on knowledge‐sharing motivation and behaviour

Abstract

This article examines how individual‐level antecedents such as motivation and ability to share knowledge mediate the relationship between HR practices and knowledge‐sharing behaviour. The results of a survey of 329 secondary school teachers reveal the contradictory effects of different HR practices on the mediating roles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to share knowledge and subsequent knowledge‐sharing behaviour of teachers. The study demonstrates that opportunity‐enhancing HR practices act as a moderating condition that activates either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to share knowledge and may completely offset the effect of motivation‐enhancing HR practices. The study makes a distinctive contribution by demonstrating how certain combinations of HR practices aimed to enhance knowledge sharing might in fact be a costly solution for organisations, as they activate different mediating mechanisms in the HRM–knowledge‐sharing behaviour link.

Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design

“…Because this type of motivation is often weakly associated with work performance and effort (e.g., Gagné et al, ; Kuvaas, Buch, Gagné, & Dysvik, ), Gagné () proposed that this type of motivation would be associated with minimally sanctioned sharing that would consequently be less frequent and of lower quality. Research so far has supported this by showing that external regulation was less positively associated with knowledge sharing than intrinsic motivation (Andreeva & Sergeeva, ). Zhao, Detlor, and Connelly () even found that it weakened the relation between intrinsic motivation and knowledge‐sharing attitudes and behaviors.…”

“…As Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen, and Reinholt () stated, “work design matters to knowledge sharing for fundamentally motivational reasons” (p. 872). We acknowledge that some cross‐sectional research, using the classic Hackman and Oldham () job characteristics model, has already shown that skill variety, task identity and significance, feedback, and autonomy can influence either motivation to share knowledge (Foss et al, ; Foss, Pedersen, Reinholt‐Fosgaard, & Stea, ) or actual knowledge‐sharing behaviors (Andreeva & Sergeeva, ; Foss et al, ; Nesheim & Gressgård, ; Patterson, Gellatly, Arazy, & Jang, ; Pee & Lee, ).…”

“…A few studies have examined how HR practices influence knowledge sharing. For example, job autonomy has been related to intrinsic motivation to share knowledge, whereas rewards for sharing knowledge were related to external regulation (Andreeva & Sergeeva, ). Commitment‐based HR practices and high‐involvement work practices have been related to knowledge sharing (Collins & Smith, ; Flinchbaum, Li, Luth, & Chadwick, ).…”

“…Many studies have already established the importance of job autonomy for knowledge‐sharing intrinsic motivation and behavior (see Pee & Lee, for a review). For example, studies have established direct effects of job autonomy (in combination with recognition for knowledge sharing and a positive knowledge sharing climate) on high‐identified and intrinsic motivation (Foss et al, ; Foss et al, ), and actual knowledge‐sharing behaviors (Andreeva & Sergeeva, ; Llopis & Foss, ; Nesheim & Gressgård, ; Patterson et al, ; Pee & Lee, ). However, the one study we found that looked at job autonomy and knowledge hiding found no relation between them (Černe et al, ).…”

Engaging customer care employees in internal collaborative crowdsourcing: Managing the inherent tensions and associated challenges

“…Engaging the CCEs in online collaborative internal crowdsourcing can overcome these pitfalls by broadening CCEs' causal maps and freeing them from organizational conformity. To this end, when the focus is on innovation through knowledge sharing and creation, there is a need to reconceptualize HRM systems (Andreeva & Sergeeva, 2016;Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen, Reinholt, 2009;Kang, Morris, & Snell, 2007;Sue-Chan & Hempel, 2016). However, when it comes to innovation, appropriate knowledge behaviors are highly ambiguous and subjective, making the design of HRM systems to encourage the right behaviors harder (Andreeva et al, 2017).…”